Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhoom 3 (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dhoom 3. I will create, and if necessary protect, a redirect from this title to Dhoom series with a commented-out note about the incubated version, in order to avoid the danger that while this is in the Incubator a new article gets started, which might lead to complications requiring a history merge. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom 3

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

Fails WP:NFF. Still not in production, and only news bits are "rumors" of who will be in the cast. Already been deleted before, but speedy declined as last deletion was 3 years ago and the film is supposedly closer to starting production (though this claim is unsourced). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not in production but still plenty of notability; a thing doesn't have to exist to be notable. Indian Express reports negotiations here, One India has the same story here, IBN Live has Yash Raj denying them here, India Times has more recent news here, and that's just English language sources. Passes WP:N requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, despite not being in production yet. Another example of a film that would have merited an article despite being nowhere near production would have been the Watchmen film at any point during its 10-year-long development hell. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that last one, India Times, is your source for "closer to production", although who knows where they got it from. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." —Mike Allen

I see WP:NFF but I've got no idea how that jibes with WP:N's assertion that any topic with significant coverage in reliable independent sources is considered notable. Jurassic Park 4 for example has a large and well-referenced section in the article on the Jurassic Park series, and per WP:SIZE were it to grow larger it would be totally appropriate to break it out into its own article. In another medium, Duke Nukem Forever is notable precisely BECAUSE of its time in development hell. The Halo film is intensely notable for its role in the respective careers of Neill Blomkamp and Peter Jackson despite never commencing principal photography (I know that topic doesn't have its own article but there's enough coverage out there to support one). The situation here is we have a film so widely anticipated that it's regularly discussed by every Indian entertainment news outlet worth its salt, and where a degree of cultural fluency with its purported state of development is an essential part of understanding contemporary Bollywood. There's contradictory policy here and a topic that, whether or not it exists, headlines hundreds of news articles. Keep seems the only realistic option. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Once there is enough coverage (such as filming) then JP4 will see its own article. As for Duke Nukem, WP:NFF goes on to say "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Yes, this guideline is for films, but I'm sure it applies to video games too. Now as for this film the production itself is not notable enough to merit its own article, and for all we know, this may never see the light of day. It may be canceled. Which is why we have the WP:NFF guideline in the first place to prevent every future film being listed here as you never know what may happen. Look what happened to Spider-Man 4, everyone, even the cast, was so sure it was going to happen. Now its been canceled and they are rebooting the franchise, at the last minute. Surely you understand why we have this guideline? —Mike Allen 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the current version of WP:NFF encourages that films should probably not have articles unless they at least commence filming, WP:CRYSTAL is set in place to specifically address that some anticipated future events might actually be notable enough to be worth reporting. What is perhaps worth remembering here is that the prospects toward the film are verifiable, the topic is (at least in India) of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the film had already been made, and that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future projects and/or whether some development will occur... but only if the article is properly and well referenced. No WP:NFF article can really be "about" a film, as the film does not exist... but an article about the topic of a proposed film can be about pre-production and prospects toward its completion... but only if the coverage toward such prospects exists and is significant. All that said, I still think it would be best to incubate this so it can get the attention it needs as filming draws near. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, the film has not been made yet. Only rumors that it will exist. Incumbate or not, my !vote is still delete from mainspace, which I thought Articles for deletion was for. —Mike Allen 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding of AFD is that it exists as a place to discuss the future or lack of an article being considered for deletion... and not just a place with only two options. My understanding was that it existed as a place to discuss how an article might best serve the project... either through its deletion if absolutely worthless or unsalvagable... or through a keep if either currently notable or soon-to-be-so.. or through one of the several other alternatives listed at WP:DEL under WP:ATD... one of which is the WP:Incubation of something that might be improved to serve the project but is not. quite. ready. yet. And yes, that would remove it from mainspace without a redirect until such time as it might actually be ready. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely, we can't propose that denial of a film's development qualifies as a reliable source to testify to a film's notability. The purpose of NFF is to avoid Wikipedia being cluttered with hundreds of thousands of articles about films that were, at one point or another, proposed for development but were never completed. That's neither encyclopedic nor helpful to a reader. This article fails NFF for having no reliable sources to prove that the film has begun principal photography. The India Times article is from the "Gossip" section of the paper and the very first sentence begins with "If rumours are to be believed...". Nothing reliable there. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF, as I've had occasion to remark before, is quite clear; it's more specific than WP:N or WP:GNG and doesn't conflict with those guidelines, but supplements them. It was put in place, as I understand it, for precisely the reason suggested by User:Big Bird above, that Wikipedia would otherwise be "cluttered with hundreds and thousands of articles about films that were ... proposed for development but were never completed." Speculation about Bollywood projects is rampant and should be confined to its natural habitat, filmi magazines; this is an encyclopedia which is about confirmed facts. I'm sure no one will object to the article being remade if and when principal photography begins. It may offer some useful perspective to remember that the people who created the articles that were the subject of previous AfDs noted above were probably also convinced that the film's debut was imminent and we were just ignorant for suggesting otherwise -- in 2006. It's precisely because this article has already failed at AfD a couple of times that we are correct to insist that it meets every applicable standard. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Incubate Even for it being an anticipatory film project, the topic is impinging strongly upon WP:CRYSTAL's "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur" through it's significant coverage from 2005 through 2010 [1]. Of "wide interest" to India is good enough for en.Wikipedia. Deletion is not always the only choice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be userfied as well. However, and I say this with all due respect to you, Michael, the discussion of this or any other AfD has to do with whether a mainspace/articlespace article should exist on this topic or if it should be deleted from mainspace. Dhoom 3 should be deleted as an article in mainspace and the above !votes are presented as arguments with respect to this. That material is userfied or merged or anything else similar can be discussed concurrently and in addition with the deletion discussion but should not be done instead of deletion discussion (not at AfD, at least). The main purpose of this discussion is, in fact, deletion. "Userfy" means "delete from mainspace and move to user page". Material in user space can exist unreferenced and non-notable without any time limits. As far as article space is concerned, deletion is the only option for material shown not to meet the notability guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy means remove from mainspace and put it somewhere where issues for an article with potential might be adressed away from a ticking clock... just as does Incubate. With respect in return, deletion and other options to improve the article and the project are exactly why we are at AFD and why AFD is not just a vote. While it might have prevented an AFD discussion in the first place if userfication or incubation were discussed on the article's talk page, they were not and now we are here. Discussing it elsewhere now would be a duplication of efforts. So as the article was brought here due to the nominator's concerns, this becomes the forum to discuss possible options beyond a simple "keep" or "delete". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating to "delete from mainspace (meaning Dhoom 3 becomes a red-link) and move to user page" which is still "delete" with an additional suggestion. I don't think it's necessary to debate semantics here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already seem to agree that the article has potential and might be improved away from mainspace, so yes... no need to debate semantics, as there are many ways that something might be removed from mainspace without actual deletion of the material... and that's what we are discussing.. yes? If an artcle has potential, but does not quite yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, the act of moving something to Incubation or Userspace is not quite as permanent as the outright deletion of the material, and such is the opinion I offer in discussion with editors here and the closer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your definition of the purposes of incubation, but it's not quality standards we're talking about here, it's more like a pass/fail criterion. The future films guideline is quite specific; if the film is not in production, we shouldn't have the article in articlespace. Improving the quality of an article that cannot be in articlespace is a waste of time -- unless you are suggesting that there is a chance this could somehow meet the general notability guideline, in which case those citations would be useful right here and now. Why not just call up the deleted version if and when the film goes into production? I routinely retrieve such materials on request. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That its coverage of this topic seems to meet WP:GNG does not seem to be in doubt... just the fact that it has not yet begun filming even with all its coverage. Where WP:NFF advises waiting until filming has commeneced, WP:CRYSTAL advises that a future event must be worth in some way discussing. Two guidelines in conflict... and both of a parent that determines something worthy of note if the topic has significant coverage. The article was 3 days old when tagged for deletion, and then sent to AFD... and no discussion on how sourcing concerns might be addressed had been initiated with its author or on the article's talk page prior to its nomination. Yes, not mandtated.. but nice. I don't think anyone here is denying its potential, and the current artticle is in need of expansion and sourcing, why not move it to incubation as WP:DEL offers, so it can be worked on in the interim? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting moving it to incubation -- to a page name something like User:MichaelQSchmidt/Dhoom 3 -- and leaving a redirect in place? Accounting4Taste:talk 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon examination of the relevant material about incubation, I see that it's not allowed to leave a redirect in place, which addresses any concerns I might have. I have no problem with incubating this article as long as it doesn't return to articlespace until it entirely meets WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You found the answer before I could get back and offer it. Yup, no redirect to a incubated article. The move would be to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dhoom 3. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dhoom series until this gets off the ground. THF (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing there discuses Dhoom 3. Isn't that giving the reader a false impression that a Dhoom 3 exist on Wikipedia? —Mike Allen
  - A merge would first put the information there and then would be followed by a redirect from the old article name to the new location. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hopefully fully sourced information (no rumors)? —Mike Allen 09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It won't be let out of Incubation otherwise, and might yet be deleted entirely there if not improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you merge the existing material (as it is now) to the series page, it's not sourced, is why I asked. :) —Mike Allen 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm in favor of the article being sent to WP:INCUBATE so it can get the attention it requires, and not return until fully ready. However, any possible merge would be to a section about a proposed third in the series, and if sourcable information remained unsourced a cite tag will flag the sentence or two for attention. Of course, even you or I might be the ones to add a citation in that instance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.