Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean's Thirteen

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 - Clear consensus. Not certain what "Test Case for films not yet completed means", we normally look at each case on it's own merits and the existence (or non existance) of one article does not justify the same for another article. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean's Thirteen

Ocean's Thirteen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This film does not yet exist, and can not be evaluated for notability. Promotional materials and prerelease articles can not be deemed sufficiently reliable. Test Case for films not yet completed. zadignose 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The notability can be established from the previous two films. Why can't pre-release articles be reliable? There's a reason Wikipedia has {{future}} templates, such as the one in use in this article and {{future book}} at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. John Reaves (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If filming has taken place, and a premier date is set, I'd say it sidesteps any claims of crystalballing. Are there no guidelines for prerelease entries? As a scheduled (and in full production) sequel to a major film series, I'd say it's sufficiently notable. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you even guarantee that the film will be completed and released? Would you have similarly guaranteed the release of the 1962 film Something's Got To Give[1] starring Marilyn Monroe and directed by George Cuckor?zadignose 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not guarantee anything. Please do not insinuate that I stated something I did not. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And I, of course, did not state that you had guaranteed it. But I asked whether you could, and if in fact you can't, then how can you decide the notability of a film which doesn't exist and theoretically may never exist? It's still crystal ball speculation to write an article on a film that hasn't been made.zadignose 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel it's necessary to guarantee the release of the film in order for it to be notable. The article has the appropriate tag for a future release, which warns the reader that the film is in production and has been scheduled, but the information may change before then. Wikipedia has similar tags for other types of scheduled events. It's not possible to guarantee with 100% certainty that a future space flight will take place (a number of factors could indefinitely delay or change the plans) but an article is still warranted, and a tag is placed to warn the reader. No crystalballing is done, only facts that a reader could easily find for themselves regarding the production. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. An incomplete film, once filming has started, is even rarer in Hollywood and deserves it own article: The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and Category:Unfinished films --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every incomplete film deserves its own article, and the vast majority of such films go unnoted by the public and history. But those films which do deserve note, for being notable failures, can be evaluated some time after the end of production. As of now, the fate of the film is unknown.zadignose 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There are ads at movie theaters for this, for cripe's sake. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reason For Delete Nomination As the nominator for this AfD, I'm suggesting the deletion of the article, on the grounds that a film that does not yet exist can not be properly evaluated for notability. As I recently commented on a withdrawn nomination for The Mummy 3, under the heading "nomination was correct,"

All films in development and production are subjects of rumors, unauthorized leaks, and intentional misinformation. There is never a guarantee of completion, but even if completion could be guaranteed, a film can not be guaranteed "notability" in advance. Entertainment magazines, and promotional materials often spread unreliable rumors. Some sources, such as IMDB or Variety can be much more reliable when discussing completed projects than describing projects in development or production... The assumption is generally that these articles are highly speculative and subject to change.

By selecting Ocean's Thirteen, I have deliberately selected a high-profile film property, which is being advertised, which is currently in production, which has a promotional page from it's production company, including a teaser trailer. I maintain that even these materials give us little reliable information upon which to build an article, and that the article is necessarily bound to contain inaccuracies, unless it is left extremely bare of any detail, in which case it is not a suitable article for inclusion at Wikipedia. Simply put, this is an article about a non-existent subject. Should Hollywood's hype and marketing budgets be sufficient to guarantee an enyclopedically notable product before it's even been seen by a reliable critic, objective outsider, or in fact by anyone?zadignose 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up some good points here, but what I'm cautious about is the unilateral denouncement of all sources regarding unreleased media (I assume this extends beyond films into other unreleased/advertised media). I believe that it can be notable before it has been seen (but it should obviously exist in some form beyond a rumor). I'm interested in hearing more counterpoints as well. Leebo⁸⁶ 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While there can never be an absolute guarantee of notability for a future film, you can be reasonably certain of its notability. Wikipedia does not deal in absolutes; most of the guidelines are left intentionally vague. Notability is one such guideline. While it may be a future film, the notability is directly asserted by the notability of the previous films; no matter what the outcome, if this movie makes it or fails it will be notable as a flop or a success. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

By arguing abstract generalities instead of using testable statements and the specifics of this case, in my opinion you have undermined it. hateless 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So by doing this, you're trying to prove a point. Nice. Changing vote. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This film is under production and it will be released soon. See here :- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0496806/ and the official site here http://oceans13.warnerbros.com/.

• Keep for the simple reason that even if it weren't released, it'd still be notable enough for an article. Mister.Manticore 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no reason to suspect it will be notable if released, except for the fact that the standards of notability for films on Wikipedia are extremely low. But if you acknowledge that we don't know the future of this film, whether it will be completed, who will appear on screen, how it will be received, what the plot will be, and that we're dependent on the equivalent of promotional press releases for information on what this film "might be," then you'll have to see how speculative a wikipedia article must be... that is, it must be speculative, or mostly devoid of content. I don't see why we should let Wikipedia become the home of highly speculative articles, even if it has sources for its speculation. Besides, how notable was Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, really? And what reason do we have to think that Ocean's Thirteen should be any more notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zadignose (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. If this $100 million-budgeted film that has already been filmed (at least to a great extent), directed by Steven Soderbergh and starring George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon fails to be completed and released, there is very likely to be substantial news coverage of that fact which would itself justify a Wikipedia article (the article would presumably focus on any relevant post-production problems in that case rather than plot description). I find about 232 Google News hits for this film [2], without even getting into a Google web search. This subject is not "non-existent"; the film already exists if only in the form of incomplete footage. Note that Wikipedia even has an article about Something's Got to Give. --Metropolitan90 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. Zadignose (talk • contribs) has admitted that he has nominated this article to prove a point about unreleased and future films. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. That's why they're filming it in the first place. Do we need to wait for the DVD release before we write an article about this movie? --- Tito Pao 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I have been following this film for a while, and this film will definitely be released, as listed above in some of the sources, imdb, official website, etc. This film would be considered notable for being a continuation of the series and the large amount of ensemble cast within the film. --Nehrams2020 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I wouldn't call it a bad faith nom as it doesn't disrupt WP more than any other AFD does and nom does seems sincere, but the nom has done a horrible job of arguing for its deletion. hateless 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't have to disrupt Wikipedia "any more" than some other action, it just has to disrupt it at all as part of an effor to prove a point. The nominator has directly, clearly, and explicitly admitted to choosing this article for deletion to prove a point. As such the nomination fails WP:POINT and should be closed with all due haste. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is ABSOLUTELY a good faith nomination, I do believe this film is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, I made my reasons clear, and your assumption is inappropriate. This is a vital issue to be discussed, and I find the reaction of the community rather surprising. I thoroughly read about several instances where people had nominated large groups of articles for deletion simultaneously, for identical reasons, which does not always go well. One of the suggestions repeated in various places was to propose one title first which is representative of the group, and based upon the precedent set, decide how to proceed. I deliberately selected a case which is representative, and which I strongly believe should be deleted. You apparently disagree, but this does not make this a "bad faith" nomination. In any case, I have now learned how remarkably low the standards of notablity are, and how naive the general public is with regards to currently hyped entertainment product, almost all of which it seems is deemed notable in advance of its production. Fair guess that the U.S. alone will produce at least 300-400 films this year that meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, and 80-100 of which will be regarded notable without haven even been seen.zadignose 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The best argument I could possibly make for this being WP:POINT is your above reply. I'll let it speak for itself. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not in advance of its production, though. It has been produced, and it has grandfathered notability from the previous movies in the series. It's not like it's in pre-production, or is rumored, it's practically done. I don't feel it's representative. I bet other prerelease movie articles could be found that better showcase the hype and rumors you are referring to, but I also think they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it's announced and in the production system; with major stars and a big budget, it's pretty well confirmable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Speedy Keep A cannot believe this was actually nominated. The conclusion of a very sucessful trilogy, coming out in meer monthes, advertised in theatres everywhere. It's an upcoming movie. There's absolutly no reason to nominate this. I'm still in shock. Ganfon 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on the grounds that this is not crystalballery. The movie has a scheduled release date and is otherwise verifiable, what's the problem? --Dennisthe2 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Make it a Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Bad faith nom. --Dennisthe2 00:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is a sequel to two big movies and will be released early June of this year; trailers also have been released, so it is set to go. --WTRiker 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Completion or not it has obvious notibility and is well known. Also don't fail WP:POINT. Also it is rather standard that famous sequals to almost any series get accepted because they are inheretly notable (look at Harry Potter books and movies for example, sometimes started years before release).--155.144.251.120 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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.