Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 John Vandenberg (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robot (film)

Robot (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Explicitly fails notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP: The film's been confirmed. Has millions of sources on the web. Highly expected. Most Expensive Indian film ever. Cast confimed. Crew confirmed. Shooting date announced. SHOULD STAY. There's no point having to create it all over again. If it had to be deleted, it had to be done nearly six months ago, when the film was only in discussion. Universal Hero (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Very well-referenced and well-written article about what looks like to be a very major film. If you mean it should be deleted because it hasn't started shooting yet, I think this is one case where the multiple sources and article quality trump a notability guideline. It's certainly worth giving the benefit of the doubt as what looks likely to be India's most expensive film ever until shooting commences. --Canley (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to excuse this particular project from the guideline -- many projects in development hell are comfortably merged elsewhere. WP:FUTFILM#Process suggests various places to merge if necessary. I listed a few examples in my recommendation below. The problem is that this is not a genuine film article -- it's merely an article that talks about a film that might be. It's been a possibility since 2001, and it could continue to be a possibility in 2011. It's not appropriate to have the illusion of a full-fledged film article when there's no guarantee that there will be a fleshing out with Plot, actual Production, and Reception sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There is plenty here and it is well supported by source material. I can't believe it's even being considered for deletion. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect elsewhere. Per WP:NFF, a stand-alone article is not appropriate because the project may linger in development hell. There is zero guarantee that a film will take place -- many oft-covered projects fail to reach this stage, sometimes for over a decade. See examples: Superman film series#Failed projects, Batman film series#Failed projects, Logan's Run#Remake, Fahrenheit 451#Future film, etc. There should not be the illusion of an actual film article when there is no actual film guaranteed here. If production begins, the article can be easily revived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. There's enough information on this one for a merge-redirect, though. The full article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I usually apply guidelines rather strictly, but common sense tells me to ignore all rules here. The article already looks more decent than the majority of WP film articles, and if something happens that prevents production, we can still delete it. – sgeureka t•c 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The project was already called off as recently as October 2007, according to the article, so I'm not sure why rules should be ignored in this instance. Because there's activity now that will possibly set up for future activity doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen. It's an issue I've seen with articles about future films -- headlines being in front of editors seems to presently indicate a good chance, when in reality, it's as questionable as the headline that came the year before or five years before that. That's why WP:NFF exists, in my opinion -- to create an objective threshold rather than use editors' personal judgment calls (especially when not informed about how many projects really falter in the film industry). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Just because there's a wealth of information about a project, it doesn't mean that the project will necessarily go ahead. Scripting issues, casting issues, all kinds of things can interfere. There are many better examples, but in my own personal experience I can point to State of Play, which had big stars attached and lots of verifiable coverage from September 2007 onwards (pre-merge version here) and which nearly collapsed due to the departure from the project of Brad Pitt. It was only Russell Crowe's late involvement which averted its abandonment, but it could quite easily have ended up as yet another failed production which was ultimately not notable enough to warrant its own article. Steve T • C 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve, there's a similiar situation here. Despite early hiccups with actors backing out, Rajnikanth will certainly play the lead role, after completing his current project. Universal Hero (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve was trying to suggest that anything can happen before production begins, and there may not necessarily be a last-minute rescue of this film like there was for State of Play. That film was merged to the source material's article until production began, at which point a full-fledged film article was established. It's not realistic to discuss the likelihood of a film taking place when we only have foretelling from the filmmakers. There are numerous instances of filmmakers involved with a project beyond State of Play, where production just cannot move forward. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question As I usually don't edit film articles (and just responded in this AfD because the title of the film was "interesting"), can someone tell me if there has been a case where a movie never entered production (death of main actor, who knows...) but was still so notable that wikipedia has kept its article and kind of always will? I'd consider revising my !vote to merge, but not anything beneath that. – sgeureka t•c 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at unfinished films and cancelled films, some of which has mentioned reasons for not being complete. It's difficult to determine because usually such projects in development will be merged elsewhere due to very little information available. Feel free to browse the entries, but I don't see many of them in necessarily good shape. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP: The film was in discussion. After Rajnikanth signed in, every financial matter has been taken care of. The film is in preproduction stage now. Director is planning the shooting dates and talking about scenes requires CG. You have waited for six years, why not a couple of months? -- Hari Prakash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.112.68 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is, anything could still happen to disrupt production. We're speaking from experience here, having seen numerous projects either postponed or cancelled altogether, even ones which seemed like a lock. There's absolutely no prejudice against this article's re-expansion or recreation once filming is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:Notability guidelines clearly states to use the common sense. Only those who live in south india and tamil speaking areas will understand the imporatance of this article.It can be removed if it is officialy dumped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayouren (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation when the film enters production. I have to disagree with those who feel that this project merits a deviation from the normal rules. The future file notability policy very clearly considers exactly this type of situation, and very clearly states that articles in an encyclopedia should not exist for a film at this stage of production. I would concur with a merge, but there really is no appropriate target to redirect or merge this content. Because I agree that the work that has gone into this article should not be lost, I have userfied the page here. I do not edit in this area, but someone who does is welcome to copy this to their own sandbox. It then could be brought back easily when the film actually enters production. I'm just unconvinced that a film that has been bouncing around for 7 years will suddenly be produced without any further production delays. Xymmax (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (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.