Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 23 (second nomination)

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 James Bond (films) as film does not meet requirements for WP:MOVIE (it has not yet entered the production phase). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bond 23

Bond 23 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An article at this title was already deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 23; it has been reposted and a speedy requested as WP:CSD#G4. I however think this article is significantly different than the deleted one to justify a full discussion. In particular, some sources have been added. IMO, it is still crystalballery, but some people disagree. See talk page of the article for rationale. Tizio 16:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical D-Hell film. It's all but certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance, and it receives plenty of ongoing publicity. They really do start planning 23 while making 21. Yeah, WP:ILIKEIT, but I think this is the exception that proves the rule, the one that shows why it's just "almost always". --Dhartung | Talk 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've read both sources and they both consist of rumors and things that may happen someday so this article falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whispering 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful delete. By all means compliant with WP:N, however, see WP:CBALL, rule 1. It is OR and not compliant with WP:V. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Article has at least 2 reputable sources, production of Bond 23 has been confirmed previously. Details on Bond 22 were announced prior to production of Bond 21 (Casino Royale). If all it was was idle speculation I'd say it was premature, but with sources it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Previous AFD doesn't count because at that time such an article was premature. But if there is already reputable media coverage for Bond 23, then it is no longer premature to begin an article on this. 23skidoo 18:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep The article isn't speculative at all, reporting only what has already been confirmed. The question is whether this is enough to justify an article—I'm not too sure on that, but there's little harm in keeping it since as the film gets closer to being made, the article will eventually be recreated anyway. 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Crystal balls are not always what they seem. There is existing speculation and discussion on this future bond movie. Even if it's never made, it's still valid speculation for something that may happen. Note what Crystal says. Unverifiable speculation. But [1][2][3][4] is all verifiable. Variety reported it. That makes it quite different from some random person writing about their ideas for a Bond movie. FrozenPurpleCube 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Bond 22. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to merge somewhere, let's merge to James Bond (films) which is a more balanced location. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. If it's to be merged, it has to go in James Bond (films). —Eickenberg 06:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The only way this film doesn't get made is if SPECTRE takes over the world. Clarityfiend 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly not true. Its track record has been fairly strong, but even major franchises like Superman and Batman had to take a cinematic break. Additionally, this article is going to be stubby for a good while, so it should belong in a broader article until it can be spun off per WP:SS and WP:NF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep As almost certain to take place and with some verified information in the article. Davewild 07:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Based on the comments below and after reviewing the relevant guideline changing to Merge to James Bond (films) until filming starts. Davewild 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Production of Bond 23 has been confirmed, and the article has reliable sources to show this - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What sources? All I see are rumors. Whispering 11:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)|

Um, there was an article in a little known newsmagazine known as Variety. Perhaps you've heard of it? FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

He's got a point, there are no rumours in this article. The problem appears to be that there is essentially Nothing in the article. And two fact tags as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the sources well atleast the Variety source anyway. From the article it's self: just now working with writers on the next Bond film for 2008, there's a 2010 date for the one after that. All of this advance planning doesn't necessarily translate into "ready to go." So there is no script yet, it hasn't even began filming yet. So the source falls afoul of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore the article it's self. Whispering 11:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC

This source doesn't run afoul of crystal ball, since Variety is a reputable source and if this movie had already been released, it'd easily merit an article. The depth of the information may be low now, but that'll change. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; see my arguments on the article's talk page. —Eickenberg 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Per your response to Lenin and McCarthy, are you recommending for either keep or merge? There's a distinction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

changed to merge below —Eickenberg 02:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - has reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher 17:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; In 2 or 3 years this article will have to be created with the updated info so why not keep it, I agree with what User:Dhartung said: The Bond franchise is somewhat different from your typical D-Hell film. It's all but certain to get made, many of the particulars are known well in advance Highfields 16:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all verifiable speculation to James Bond (films) in a Future section. Whether this film will enter production or not is not an argument to make here, and it unfortunately appears that this is the case. This article will be underdeveloped for a long time, considering that Bond 22 has not even entered production. Per notability guidelines for films, it is not appropriate to create articles about films until they enter production, and this film is far from being produced. If this article is kept (since AfDs are not the best way to go to address preliminary information about future films), I will be requesting for a merge discussion based on the arguments I've presented, but in a more detailed manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For similar implementation (to support above merge argument), see Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4, Wolverine (film), Magneto (film), and X-Men 4. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bond23-article is in accordance with WP's notability guidelines for films, because—as the Variety article clearly states—production on Bond 23 has already begun. I quote: "That 2010 Bond pic exemplifies the latest trend. Many studios, with dates lined up for '09 and the year after that, have set marketing and merchandising plans in motion and have started talks with visual effects houses." In a way that's logical… as soon as you have a release date, you start working. —Eickenberg 02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC) see below

The guideline says that it must be production of the film. If you take a look at filmmaking, this is the middle stage. Bond 23 is either in development or pre-production. It certainly has not begun production; Bond 22 has not begun production, either. Production of Bond 23 is still a long way off, so this article is going to be stubby for quite some time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Althoug the WP:NF are quite clear (start of principal photography), the reference to the filmmaking-article is still misleading, because the article is… well… old-school and wrong in its neat separation of filming stages. As the Variety article states, many modern films (like Bond 23) start the final marketing phase etc. as part of the development stage, which is only sound economic reasoning. Writing and shooting often go hand in hand. Some films don't even have a screenplay, some don't even have a shoot (e.g. Jarman's Blue). Production and post-production very often run parallel (e.g. the first XXX-film). Stanley Kubrick chose a young boy for the android-role for his A.I. and started shooting footage of him before the screenplay was written, over a decade before planned commencement of the primary shoot. On (partially) animated films and back-to-back films (e.g. BTTF, LOTR etc.) it's also a completely different cup of tea. Some footage for the 3rd film (not only 2nd unit) is often shot as part of the 2nd film's production phase etc., while they're still working on the screenplay. —Eickenberg 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there are expectations; I know a film like The Invasion (film) had to be re-shot. However, I think it's pretty clear here that Bond 23 is not going to start principal photography until after Bond 22 finishes its own shooting, and there's no telling that Bond 23 will begin right after the completion of Bond 22. After all, there's been some downtime between Casino Royale and Bond 22. The reason for the threshold of article creation at the start of principal photography is that until that point, it's still possible for production to halt, even with a writer, director, and even a cast attached. If you look at the production history of American Gangster or Speed Racer (film), this has happened. I think for any back-to-back films, information could possibly go into a film series article; discussion should take place about that. The WP:NF guideline isn't binding, but it should be followed unless exceptions can be provided. For example, I'm not in total agreement with merging Bond 22 because I recognize the franchise's strong track record. Bond 23, however, is still too far in the future for any real certainty and article development beyond a stub. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no viable reason to keep this article. The only real world content is Craig's salary, which can easily be stated on Bond 22. Nothing says this fill WILL get made, nor does it say anything about WHEN it will. It could be 5+ years before they get this out. There is no reason to have an article that will just be home to tons of OR and speculation and other vandalism. A studio saying "we're going to make a film" doesn't mean the film will get made. Warner Brothers said that for 20 years with Superman, and for half that long with Batman. Spider-Man had 20 years of "it's coming" before it finally got made. Talk is cheap, and doesn't negate CRYSTAL. There is no ironclad proof of when this film will get made, let alone released. No reason to jump the gun.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral, because we're not talking any film series here: we're talking the mother of all comeback routines. The biggest gap for a Bond film was six years. It could be merged to Bond 22, as James Bond (films) is a bit too broad in my view. Alientraveller 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge viable content to James Bond (films) as per Erik and Bignole's comments. The film notability guidelines specifically denote that no films are to have articles until shooting has been confirmed to have commenced, and all relevant content is to remain in the article about the source material until that point. The guideline is unambiguous, easy to implement, and requires no deletion of content, nor does it make any judgment in any respect as to the likelihood of the article eventually meeting the requirements. Please respect the guidelines - this was hammered out relatively recently, but with extensive discussion before, during, and after, and was announced in every normal venue to the Wikipedia community. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 22:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, then why hasn't the article about Bond 22 been deleted? If commencement of shooting is the requisite for an article creation, this would even be enough to make a speedy delete. Therefore I change my vote to Merge both Bond 22 and Bond 23 to James Bond (films). —Eickenberg 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AfD is a poor course of action for addressing these film articles. The articles are usually based on at least some kind of valid announcement, so usually these announcements by Variety or The Hollywood Reporter should be mentioned on the article of the source material or the article of the director (see Neil Marshall). These articles should instead undergo WP:MERGE discussions to determine the placement of the content. A lot of articles are created far too soon and languish without development due to the projects not advancing beyond mere announcement or screenwriter hires. There are still other future film articles that need to be addressed, so this is a stepping stone. —Erik (talk • 8contrib) - 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, film is part of the obviously notable Bond series. Enough information has been released for it to deserve its own article. --musicpvm 09:04, 9 August 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.