Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Django Unchained

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Quentin Tarantino#Other potential projects. While there were good arguments on both sides, the article can be rebuilt if the project ever develops Firsfron of Ronchester 04:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Django Unchained

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Django Unchained (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should NOT have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." Furthermore, the film has not even entered into pre-production yet and (as per WP:CRYSTAL) the only evidence of its existence is a scanned title page that could have originated anywhere. There are insufficient details to warrant an article at this point. I propose that if/when the information is verified to be true at a later date, that it be merged into the Quentin Tarantino article until the film enters into production.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the reason for proposed deletion is dually noted, I'd like to argue for the article to remain in place because, while the complaint claims there's "no sure thing", there hasn't ever been a Tarantino film that's fell through and the possibility isn't even acknowledged in the places it's being reported (a quick Google search shows nearly every major film site claiming it's Tarantino's "next film"). Tarantino isn't like other directors. He doesn't start projects then decide against them (not including hypothetical musings about possible ideas that he's talked about in interviews). He doesn't submit screenplays that struggle to get backing. Once he puts pen to paper the film is going to be made. He isn't somebody who's made 20 films and has any number of scripts sitting around he'd like to direct. He's made 6 and followed each one through. What's been leaked isn't simply an idea that he's expressed interest in or a rumor that he's considering making x movie, but rather a final shooting draft written and signed by he himself. This happens every time he's made a film, dating back to at least Kill Bill, and has always been considered an unofficial but completely definitive announcement.
To be noted also is that after various photocopies in black and white circulated around the web, The Tarantino Archives (www.tarantino.info), the only Tarantino fansite on the web to which Tarantino directly communicates and gives interviews, released the full color red-and-black coverpage and announced that it would be Tarantino's next film. The Tarantino Archives have never misforcasted a film of his in the past.
Finally and furthermore, while the early pre-production of a regular film may not be important enough to warrant its own article, Tarantino is a cult and pop cultural icon whose upcoming projects are given much more attention and interest than other directors due to his large and devoted fan following, his universal acclaim, and the relative scarcity of his projects (only 6 films in nearly 20 years of filmmaking).
May I suggest a compromise in revising the production section to further note and underscore the fact that the film is only in early pre-production? There are no doubt going to be many, many people interested in this subject who would like to have a Wikipedia article to turn to and build upon when further developments are announced; it would be a shame to delete an article that will be useful to a lot of people. This was only leaked very late last night and by the time I got here this morning there was already a poorly-written stub, which I would say exemplifies the level of interest in the subject.Tjagolf33 (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, and if that is the case, then it should be merged with the Quentin Tarantino article, regardless of the level of interest surrounding the film. It is clearly in violation of WP:NFF. Furthermore, very little is known about this film other than the title and Quentin Tarantino's involvement. Even the cast is nothing but speculation at this point. Please note that The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man did not have their own articles until they entered into the late stages of pre-production. These films had been confirmed by the studios and had filmmakers and cast in place before getting their own articles. And as for your claims that there has never been a Tarantino film to fall through, I'm sure that there are many Tarantino fans (myself included) who remember Double V Vega (aka The Vega Brothers). :) TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand :) Not to nitpick, but I did say "once he puts pen to paper the film is going to be made" and "not including hypothetical musings about possible ideas that he's talked about in interviews", so Double V Vega isn't applicable seeing as it was never written and only ever speculated about in interviews :P... It is true that he's never submitted a script that wasn't made into a film.Tjagolf33 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I must've missed that part about "once he puts pen to paper" and "hypothetical musings." Apologies. :) I don't think that the article should be completely deleted, just merged with the article about Quentin Tarantino. Many films, including the ones I mentioned above, begin their lives as sections of an article about a filmmaker or movie franchise and then get their own page once they enter into production. I trust that your information is good and solid and when the film gets made, the page can and will be undeleted. Remember, there is no deadline. We can afford to wait until the film actually enters into production to start an article about it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an offically movie. It will be made soon and once it goes into production will get a page. But why make a new one? This is fine and proves to have enough information to get the page started. -TD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.189.135 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I specified above, it is in violation WP:NFF. I think that this is pretty cut and dry. The article should either be deleted or merged with the Quentin Tarantino article. Bigger films than this have had to wait until the film entered into production before getting their own articles. Also, there is not enough information available to warrant an article. TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to explain my position a little bit better. It should not have its own page UNLESS the production itself is somehow noteworthy. By this I mean that if the story of bringing the film to the screen is particularly dynamic and worthy of its own article, as was the case with The Hobbit (what with all the delays and setbacks, lawsuits, settlements over production/distribution rights, studio bankruptcies, directors leaving, labor/union disputes, sets burning down, possibility of production leaving the country, etc), then it should get its own article, even if it never enters into production. But I have very little reason to believe that its pre-production is going to be that dynamic. It's better to wait for it to enter into production before it gets its own article. However, in the event that something major happens that would warrant it getting its own article, it can justifiably be undeleted.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Minimal coverage exists, and if filming never starts it will continue to be yet another of the film ideas Tarantino likes to talk about. It hasn't even been officially confirmed yet, the news of the title is based on rumours. Smetanahue (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Tjagolf33's defense, the film was actually confirmed by The Weinstein Company last night and Christoph Waltz is now officially on board. However, that is beside the point.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still all rumours though. The only things which have been confirmed as of now are the title and that Weinstein is on board. Perfect example of info that should be on Tarantino's page and not in an article of its own. The question we always have to ask for articles on upcoming films is whether the project still would be notable even if the movie is cancelled today, which this clearly wouldn't - it would only become a couple of sentences in passing in Tarantino's article. The only argument for keeping it seems to be that it's a Tarantino film which would make it a big event if it gets made, which is an obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It's exactly this kind of articles for subjects with large fan bases the WP:NFF exists, it's just too unencyclopedic to make an article which might have to be deleted in the near future. For one recent exemple this is what happened to the Yellow Submarine remake, which got an article that was kept because the fanboys claimed that Robert Zemeckis movies never get cancelled and are too important to follow guidelines. And then the movie was cancelled and the article was immediately removed, because too little coverage existed to make it notable as a cancelled film. Smetanahue (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Well I'm not personally invested in the article, I don't particularly like Tarantino films. It might be worth a short reprieve though, the article mentions that it could go ahead as soon as fall. If that is true then information regarding the film should pick up soon. But if that still counts as Crystal Ball that's fine, as I say, I'm not invested in it either way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Redirect - There is currently nothing here but the potential for a film. Nothing is stated to have been greenlit and all we have is a copy of a script cover sheet. Per WP:NFF, this should not exist. I can see the title being a redirect though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Django_Unchained&oldid=1080252007"