Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Films set in 2015

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films set in 2015

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

Contains only three films, and as there don't seem to be similar articles for other years, I'm going to say that Category:Films set in 2015 will suffice and this page fails WP:LISTCRUFT. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there were more films, I'd say keep it but only 3 doesn't really need an article. If there are more in the future, it can always be recreated. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films set in 2015 has six. I don't know if that's necessarily enough or too few for a standalone list here, but I'm also unfamiliar with this list/category scheme. Is it intended to target films set in a different year than the year of release and/or production? postdlf (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: I'm not familiar with the system either, but six films still isn't very many. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the intent, a list would be able to annotate that (and other details about the films) and make the intended list subject more clear. The categories have stuff like Godzilla (2014 film) in Category:Films set in 2014, so I'm not sure if that's due to poor maintenance or not, and I really don't see the point of listing or categorizing every film set in its year of release. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: What? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What what? I said if the intent is to list and categorize only films set in years other than their year of release/production, that's the kind of information that a list should annotate where a category cannot. If the intent is instead to list and categorize every film by the year in which they are set, even if (as is true of most films) they are set in the same year they are released (i.e., have a "contemporary" setting), then i don't see the point of doing that at all. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual years are generally irrelevant as settings, with the possible exceptions of 1984 and 2001. Another problem is that many films would occupy/clog multiple year lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Might work as Films set in the near future (relative to their release date). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: since "near future" is subjective, I'm assuming you mean "unspecified near future". (For instance, the original X-men trilogy.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the criterion would be that society would be more or less the same/recognizable, with just a few bells and whistles difference, e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey, not Blade Runner. (or is that still too subjective?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a formula for a mess to me, what with sorting out the "near futures" that are now present or past (such as 2001) and those that become near future as the (at the time) far future date is approached. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone goes that route, it should be the "near future" relative to when the film was produced/released. 2001 is still set in what was the future to the filmmakers even though it is the past to us now...because we live in the future! postdlf (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nomination, and keep the Category in-place. Frmorrison (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -to say to move this to an article that lists "possible near future projects" is like saying "Ford or Bentley may come out with a new car next year!" It probably will happen but we are not fortune tellers and should not be writing articles under mere speculation. I think the articles should be created as they happen in an effort to not create what could become a sure backlog of maybes.Canyouhearmenow 11:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Canyouhearmenow: I think you may be suffering from a slight misunderstanding - this is a list of films set in 2015, not those due to be produced in 2015. Which means that the proposal was to make a list of articles set in an unspecified near-future date, not those soon to be produced. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@G S Palmer: You know under all of this white hair used to be a full head of blonde. Just saying!Canyouhearmenow 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the category is good though. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2014 (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.