Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Men: First Class (film project)

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 Keep. Non-admin close per WP:SNOW.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: First Class (film project)

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

Fails WP:NFF. Information should be merged to X-Men (film series) as has always been the case until filming underway - WP:NFF is a good guideline - it states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." The information can easily fit on the series page Rob Sinden (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stub. With respects, the sourced content would overburden the series page if merged. But as it does with other related topics, the series page might have a paragraph which speaks toward the topic and can itself then redirect from that section to the larger supporting spinout article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't fail WP:GNG and it doesn't fail WP:NFF because it is not treated the same as a film article. The Avengers film project and The Hobbit film project are good examples of this. I can see where you make an valid argument where it still fits the film series article but it looks better organized how it's being treated right now than that giant section in the film series before. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point for separate pages with the two articles you mention, as they would overburden any other page they were part of, but don't think that this is the case for this specific page. Whilst those are exceptional cases, I don't think that the same applies for this page, and wonder if this is the kind of precedent we really want to set. I certainly don't think so. However, if consensus is such that this article kept, I feel this should be discussed on the WP:NFF talk page with a view to modifying the guideline. Oh - and for consistency's sake, shouldn't this move to X-Men: First Class film project, or move the others to fit in with this one? Rob Sinden (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that putting the film project on brackets was probably a better idea. It shows that it ain't part of the name title. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, why are you AFDing this if all you want to do is merge. That's better discussed in the film series article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Well, as a "project" topic article (film-related) and not a "film" article, the name should always indicate that the topic is not a made film... so either serves and neither reflects the {likely) final name, for if the film is made (which seems likely from the sources and from the industry's chase for consumer dollars), the title format will change, the article format will change some, and film templates will then be added. If the film ends up not being made, the persistent coverage shows notability per GNG in an historic context. This type of project article, with the topic having wide and perisistent coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time, is one of those "rare" exceptions that "prove" the rule. If you want to offer a project article, the coverage must far exceed normal expectations in order to move away from NFF to be worth inclusion under GNG and NOT. Had there been less coverage and for for a shorter period of time, I might have agreed that a merge might serve... but as you point out, and per deletion policies WP:DEL and WP:ATD, that would have been a conversation for the article's talk page and not a deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD-ing, because (notwithstanding others comments) it appears to me to directly contravene WP:NFF, and seems to be a backdoor way of creating an article which shouldn't exist. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to depth and persistence of coverage alowing this to be per WP:NOT's "...articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and 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, if discussion is properly referenced." While WP:NFF is set in place to prevent speculative or poorly sourced articles about a film that "may" take place, and while yes it does encourage a merge in most occasions, per policy WP:NOT, and due to the extreme and persistant in-depth coverage of the "project", such a topical topic is allowed as one of those rare and allowed exceptions to WP:NFF... with the "topic" to be written of as a "project" and not as a film... as until made, the "topic" is a "non-film" topic article, though film-related. A recent discussion that dealt in depth with this specific kind of Project article is found here with the resulting consensus creating the "project" article found HERE. Though certainly not applicable to most pre-production projects, as many lack the persistent depth of coverage or lack in-depth content, in some rare cases where a proper merge of sourced content would overburden the parent article (and this is one of those cases), notability for a stand alone article is met through the persisitence and depth of coverage showing the topic to be worthy of note, with the article remaining as a well-documented "project", and undergoing expansion and additional sourcing through regular editing as even more information is forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common sense with the start of filming scheduled to happen this month. If filming is delayed for any reason, however, I would support a merge to the film series article. Regardless, I am disappointed to see the project articles suddenly be applied as a standard in an attempt to overturn WP:NFF. WP:N defers to topic-specific guidelines, so there is no vacuum here in which only WP:GNG can apply. I had hoped to treat the two cited project articles as certain exceptions because of the extensive history involved, despite the references involved have a false sense of forward-thinking. Clearly, a can of worms has been opened in which anticipatory headlines are wrapped up into a falsely enduring topic. WP:NFF is clear: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." See how it exists comfortably in the film series article? There was no need to undermine this, as it is being done here. Clearly content was being built in a proper, less anticipatory arena and could have been set up when filming started. I'm only suggesting keep because I don't want to see content bounce around anymore, but this may require clarifying WP:NFF so WP:GNG is not abused as if this has nothing to do at all with film-related guidelines and a film being made. Exceptions appear to be becoming commonplace with the criteria being pushed away from the criteria of a broader topic providing in part coverage a possible film adaptation. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had filming not been so imminent and coverage so persistant, I might have myself urged a brief stay in the incubator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erik, you seem to mirror my sentiments in a way better than I could have explained. If your reasons for keeping is that the film is so imminent and there's no point in deleting, any thoughts as to whether this article should not just be moved to the "(film)" page, rather than encourage more "(film project)" articles? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not care for the "film project" disambiguation, I think it is better to treat plans for a film (which can always fall through) as merely a project than the blueprint for an apparently guaranteed film (using an infobox, actual film categories, cast list, etc). We're in unprecedented territory, making up history out of news headlines as we go. I think the best course of action is to use the "film" disambiguation if filming does start and to apply the typical film article format then. In the future, though, the best course of action to address the shoehorned project articles is to develop a concise merged section with details of the film adaptation that matter in the long term. There are a ton of ways to distill plans into a paragraph or two. For example, Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project) is another painfully presented project article about Goldie Hawn wanting to make her directorial debut. It could be perfectly sufficient in two or three sentences at her own article: "Since 1996, Goldie Hawn has trying to direct Ashes to Ashes, a black romantic comedy set in India, which she co-wrote with Jeremy Pikser. She plans to have Kurt Russell co-star alongside her." With filming yet to start, if ever, these are the only relevant details. We can reference the oldest article and the newest article to show the timespan, but to have a "Goldie Hawn film project" article? I feel a two-pronged approach is best: The concise section in a broader article, and an incubated full-fledged article that can be rolled out when filming starts. That way, we wouldn't be deluded into thinking that a wall of text of indiscriminate going-arounds is suddenly history. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this particular discussion was about X-Men: First Class (film project). Why are you WP:WAXing about something that is not X-Men: First Class (film project)? Would it not be best to keep centered on X-Men: First Class (film project)? Or are we here to instead discuss every other article with which you have concerns other than X-Men: First Class (film project)? If we're to wax, then perhaps The Hobbit film project should be immediatelly added to this AFD, as it fails WP:NFF by a mile, as is not even close to being in even pre-production, and does not even have a production company, director, script, cast, or budget. All it has is coverage in reliable sources... but naturally, NFF does not care unless' it is actually a production. All The Hobbit film project has is speculation... lots and lots of speculation. So per WP:NFF, how on earth could it ever be notable?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons why this article exists for the time being is because it is obvious that it is coming. Which is why Erik said keep for now. Another main reason why I created it is because I already created a sandbox for this after a discussion with Schmidt which started out as a question that if this could be possible and how this works. So I thought I might as well put it to life. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By Erik's careful and quite logical reasoning, The Hobbit film project should have only a paragraph or two in some other Hobit article, be itself incubated for a few years, and then deleted if never made. Per WP:NFF it should not exist, even as an exception, as the 'The Hobbit film project' does not have any 'production'... it has not even approached the point of casting, much less having a final script, or a film budget. So... who wishes to send it to AFD? Not me, certainly... as policy WP:NOT and guideline WP:N encourage its existance. When does Guideline trump Policy or consensus? Anyone want to propose it for deletion and find out?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sending it to AFD is inappropriate because it encourages a keep-versus-delete mentality where coverage of yet-to-be-produced films requires the finesse of merging where applicable. The Hobbit is a project that is a much better exception than Ashes to Ashes, and its article would require evaluation to be more to-the-point about the key events in trying to get it made. For example, what del Toro intended is less relevant because he is no longer attached as director. It's likely, though, that it would be more than one or two paragraphs. A merged section does not have to be that few paragraphs, it can be more. After all, the plans are only notable because of preexisting notability; they're not being recognized of their own accord. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're waxing about things other than X-Men: First Class (film project), please, either propose The Hobbit film project get incubated for a few years (and eventually deleted if not actually filmed), or propose it be distilled and merged. Per WP:NFF, and most specially as The Hobbit film project does not represent any actual production (only a notable topic specifically encouraged by WP:SPLIT), the information in that stand-alone article must be reduced and placed somewhere else... anywhere else. How dare it call itself a "project". WP:NFF instructs (even though NFF is at odds to other guidelines and policies), that The Hobbit film project does not belong in Wikipedia in any way other than as a much shorter mention in some other article. Ironic, and I do not agree, but I now know how Guideline may be allowed to ursurp Policy. Thank you for the clarification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep waving around WP:GNG. It does not apply. We have a subject-specific guideline for films. That does not exclude plans for them. Otherwise, what would be the point of WP:NFF? Policy is not neatly applicable here. We can report discussion of future projects, but we're not supposed to be news reports nor indiscriminate information. Merged sections in most cases will report discussion, will fall under enduring topics (as related news reports since they cannot make up a stand-alone article), and will be discriminate in highlighting key planning events. The Hobbit film project is a tougher call because at some point it becomes more about the struggle to reach production than the film itself. Maybe it needs addressing, maybe it does not. We'd need to review the references to see if any observe it as a project in development as opposed to interviewing del Toro who shares his ideas for a creature. In any case, if we avoid the assumption of an actual film, the path to coverage will start with the source material. For The Hobbit, readers will obviously go to that article as a starting point. Maybe everything about the attempted film adaptation can be said there, maybe there was enough direct investigation of the project itself to warrant a sub-article. Is that distinction and that presentation of content so detrimental? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons explained above. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Schmidt and Erik, so my !vote is keep Mike Allen 02:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This film has been confirmed that Filming has started. Because of that it has been moved to X-Men: First Class (film) and that's where this AFD is now located. Thank you! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes sense that this be closed. Since the name of what we are really nominating to delete is basically a redirection. No guideline is violated now. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its started filming, so maybe it deserves its own article.Smokeanddie (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew... it almost got reduced to two sentences and merged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of this. This the second thing that I created that would then be a redirect right when nominated for deletion. See Template:Color topics. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy Keep Argument is invalid given that filming has already started. Set Photos of Emma Frost.KiasuKiasiMan 12:03, 9 September 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.