Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Derrickson's unrealized projects

Scott Derrickson's unrealized projects

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST - no sources discussing the list's notability as a construct. Contains nothing that would not be suitable to be in prose at Scott Derrickson. Intrinsically flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, Lists, and United States of America. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, would not be a particularly helpful redirect to Scott Derrickson. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect and merge to the main article seems warranted, considering the sources about all those unrealized projects and the notability of the director. I can't see why this would not be helpful. (Also see this, fwiw).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I see a Twitter copy-paste...is there anything more? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2 paragraphs in a 2021 Den of Geek article titled "Guillermo del Toro, James Gunn, and Edgar Wright Reveal Secrets About Their Unmade Movie Scripts: Guillermo del Toro, Edgar Wright, James Gunn, and Scott Derrickson discuss the movies that got away.", one quoting SD saying: "I had a 5 year run before The Exorcism of Emily Rose during which I was paid to write or rewrite 13 screenplays — none of them got made. I was earning a good living but all of my creativity would be read by just a handful of executives. It caused a kind of soul sickness in me.” -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...you could have just said "no". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. Why should I have said no? These are 2 paragraphs in an article in DoG not (only) a Twitter copy-paste. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know what you're seeing Mushy Yank, but I see one paragraph copied from his Twitter account, and a paragraph talking about a film he didn't make. None of which is justification, per WP:GNG, for a list of his unrealized projects, unless you've see it differently? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just replied to your question as plainly as I could. I only mentioned that article for what it was worth, i.e. to give an idea of the amount of projects he has not realised and again, if the list is not considered notable as a group, a redirect to a section in the main article seems in my view a good solution and that's what I expressed in my !vote. The subject of the page being the films he didn't make, a source about.... films he didn't make was, I thought, relevant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]