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

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. ✗plicit 23:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    
    That exact quote is already in Scott Derrickson, along with a preceding sentence of prose characterizing it in Wikivoice, and has been since October 2023. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you. But again I just added this link here for what it's worth and commented on it and quoted it more extensively only because I was asked what was in it. And that is really not the main part of my !vote. Nor is my !vote based on this quote. I hope that much is clear now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listcruft, fails NLIST. Bios don't need stand alone lists of projects that were not completed, completely unneeded CFORK. Nothing here that would improve the main, redirect would be pointless, but no objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Half the stuff announced in Hollywood doesn't get made. Some of these are attachment packages just to get further development going, but it can still just go to development hell. If there were a number of projects that he put a lot of development effort into, and that development work also got reported on, then I could see that being a notable list, but as it stands, it seems more of a WP:COATRACK of announcements. For example Guillermo del Toro's unrealized projects has some extensive material on unrealized projects for some entries (good), but it is unfortunately also includes numerous list entries on one-off announcements (bad). This one appears to only include the latter. -2pou (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (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.