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 The Lost Symbol#Film. There is a consensus to perform this action, and the article currently fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, as filming has not yet began and the film is not almost certain to happen, so redirecting seems appropriate. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Symbol (film)[edit]

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

This film has not started actual filming yet, ~~and has not had much news for a long time~~. I don't think other films at this stage of development usually have their own articles (for example, Star Wars Episode VII). Alphius (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Lost_Symbol#Film. I did find these articles that mention that pre-production might begin this year, but nothing definite. Until filming actually starts, we should just redirect to the subsection in the Lost Symbol article for the film.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I had done originally, but someone undid it and told me to put it up at Articles for Deletion if I disagreed with that. Alphius (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lost Symbol#Film per the notability guidelines for future films. The person who reverted was Elonka (talk · contribs) who referred to this discussion which does not consider the aforementioned guidelines. In addition, the claim at that discussion that the film is in production is incorrect. The start of filming is the proper threshold for the creation of a stand-alone article. From what I can tell, they are still writing it, which is no assurance that a film will ever be made. EDIT: To elaborate on the reason for the guidelines, the assumption is that once filming starts, a final product will result. Before then is no guarantee, so it would be misleading to have a film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar recent precedents include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robopocalypse (2014 film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expendables 3. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saying that there's been no recent news, is not a valid argument for deletion. There are reliable sources, and the movie is going to happen, even if there are schedule delays. As Tokyogirl79 pointed out, there are current sources,[1] and if the Los Angeles Times is covering the story,[2] that is a good argument that the film is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Even if we temporarily merge this film article back into the The Lost Symbol article now, we're just going to end up re-creating the film article in the future, so why go to that trouble now and make more work for ourselves? I have read the guideline at WP:NFF, but it's a guideline, meaning a recommendation, and not policy. We don't need to follow it absolutely. This Lost Symbol film article already exists, doesn't appear to be causing any damage to the project, the topic is notable, and has multiple reliable sources. I see no need to delete. --El on ka 17:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, WikiProject Film has dealt with many articles that were created based on the news that potential films were in development. Only a small portion of those in development actually become films because there are always factors that will get in the way of filming. That's why development hell is such a common term. The problem with having this article is that it purports that there will be a film when this is no certainty of one. We cannot assume there will be a film in the future, especially because non-activity is not often reported. For example, The Winter of Frankie Machine was a project in development, and the last bit of news was in 2007. There was no follow-up because there was no activity to report on. To be clear, this should never have been a discussion to delete; it is a matter of where to report the news coverage of a possible film. The guideline is informed by what actually happens with films in development, and this is a good example because it has been planned since 2009. Something like Shantaram (film) was in the works for six years but never started filming. News coverage is easily summarized in a "Film adaptation" section and can be part of a "Production" section if (not when) filming does start. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erik, I appreciate that you are arguing in good faith, but I am not persuaded. I've run into these kinds of situations elsewhere around Wikipedia, where a WikiProject starts doing a sweep to delete perfectly good articles, out of a desire to "standardize". The main arguments I'm seeing here are, "Well, if we're not keeping articles about <movie1, movie2, movie3>, then we shouldn't keep this one either." I've probably also got my hackles up a bit because this article has been kicked around for awhile. There was an attempt to merge, which did not reach consensus. So then someone came along and tagged it for speedy deletion, and that got shot down. Then Alphius came along and just deleted the article without discussion, which was definitely outside of process. So I restored the article, and now we're at AfD. The amount of pressure to get rid of this article seems way out of proportion. If the AfD closes as "delete" or "redirect", so be it, but I remain in disagreement with this proposed course of action. --El on ka 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the disregard for precedent. Years ago, there was a major problem with an article being created every time plans for a film were announced. The guidelines were established to help us place coverage accordingly. The problem is movie news continues to be very hyped; a headline about rights being bought for a film will make major rounds, but that does not mean it warrants a stand-alone article in this encyclopedia off the bat. The goal is to create an article for the ages. Without the start of filming, the status of the topic is inherently unstable. That's why there's this bouncing back and forth; it is easy to feel that this film will be happening soon, but that was probably the feeling back in 2009 too. That's why the guidelines exist, to reflect that overarching consensus that addresses the common knee-jerk reaction to such headlines. To merge and redirect is a proper approach because it establishes the right encyclopedic scope, that these are plans for a film and that it is too soon to start using the film infobox or putting it in film categories as if it is a done deal. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Alphius is not an admin, and he did not delete the article. There is a distinct difference between deleting from the public eye and redirecting a title to a section that already has coverage. It is about accurate presentation of a tangible topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't realize there had been recent news, but I still think it doesn't need to exist yet. There are many precedents, including the recent ones mentioned by Erik, in which similar amounts of information (or more information) have been available about films, and they have still not gotten their own articles at this point in development. Alphius (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the article didn't exist yet, it might make sense to not create it, per WP:NFF. But it does exist, and seems innocuous enough. I don't think it's worth a lot of time to debate whether it should or shouldn't be deleted. Let's just keep it and move on to the kazillion other things on Wikipedia needing our time? --Elonka 19:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just trying to keep to the many precedents I've seen before. There have been many articles for unreleased films that have existed and have had much more content than this (nearly all of which is in the section that it would be redirected too, anyway), and have still been deleted (such as Star Wars Episode VII, Robopocalypse, and The Expendables 3). Personally, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem to keep well-sourced articles for films that have not started filming yet, but I think that standards should be kept in this kind of situation. Based on the logic that it shouldn't be deleted or redirected because it already exists, those other articles should have been kept as well. With the little content this page currently has, I don't think it would really be too much trouble to bring it back later, and in the meantime, The Lost Symbol#Film can be expanded. Alphius (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Lost_Symbol#Film until the project begins filming.Bencey (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2013 (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.