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. Let it be known that I hate you all for making me read through this entire AfD (jokes, of course (but seriously, I work in 8 hours and I'm tired)). The text made my browser lag.

Anyway, a few good points have been raised on both sides. While this article is pretty shaky as a standalone movie article, it has received quite a bit of press attention and fan speculation - enough, I'd say, to make it notable enough. With a bit of rework, I think both parties could be satisfied.

In the event that somebody is upset with this close, I welcome all questions, comments and death threats on my talk page. m.o.p 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla (2012 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Godzilla (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This movie Godzilla (2012 film) is not in production. The article consists of recaps of previous movies, rumours and stories about various people being "attached" to the project. There is no writer, no script, no actors cast. There is no basis for the title being "Godzilla", or that it will be made, let alone released in 2012. The only thing that has actually been produced is a T-shirt. Like every big "franchise" there is always someone who has the rights to a remake/sequel and who generates waffle to keep interest alive. Should be deleted per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." All pertinent information is already noted in Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot. Barsoomian (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The number of Google hits on what? Rumours? And yes, lots of people read the article, and had their time wasted. It will be notable if and when it's made. What few facts are in the article are already at Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot. It doesn't merit its own article now. Barsoomian (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable already, that's what the hits show. It has been reported by proper, reliable sources, and it has been reported on world-wide. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF is the criterion for notability in this case. Not rumours that a director "is closing a deal", not how excited the fans get about it. They actually have to start shooting the film. And if there's anything we can be sure of, it's that if it is ever made it will not be called Godzilla and it won't be a "2012 film". Barsoomian (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said elsewhere, this is a quote from wp:nff: "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The signing of Edwards alone was reported on in Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Zoom Cinema, CBC, ABC, MTV, NME, TIME, HitFix, New York Magazine, Sky Movies, FANGORIA and more. Take a look at the links in news.google.com for 'godzilla reboot'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A production that DOES NOT EXIST can't be notable. People have been talking about Godzilla (Next Year) for ten years. People get "signed", "attached"; T-shirts are sold. Variety writes a puff piece. One day it might happen. Until they start rolling film, leave it as a footnote in Godzilla (franchise). Barsoomian (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Non existance" is not a criteria for dismissing notability. A topic having enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period is exactly what notability is all about. (for example, see Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy, and other non-existant yet notable topics) That you could write "People have been talking about Godzilla (Next Year) for ten years" shows the enduring nature of the topic making the topic itself "worthy enough of note" so that the topic might be discussed. AS a topic, it is simply not (yet) a film... but then, its notability is not dependent on it being a film, but rather on the enduring coverage of the topic itself over a muti-year period. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are reliable sources, not blogs and fanboy sites. That's enough proof that it exists. They hired a director. That sounds like it's going on, to me. Even if photography has started, a film could be cancelled. As for past efforts, that's irrelevant. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General notability is enough, the deletion nomination is based on a recommendation from a project. To quote: 'unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.' ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG does not trump policy, though. The article consists solely of news reports, and Wikipedia concerns itself with topics of enduring notability. A possible film is not enduringly notable. The article inherits its notability (which is a no-no) from the popularity of the franchise itself, and reports can be used as part of a topic of enduring notability, which is the Godzilla franchise. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy requires verifiability of any statement offered in the article and that editors refrain from inserting their own opinions and analysis. While any in-depth coverage of a topic in news media is a "news report", if it were one brief flurry of reports, then NOTNEWS might apply. But both policy and guideline find that the notability of any topic may be found in its persistant and enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. And while certainly any topic may receive media attention due to its relationship to other topics, INHERITED is not being asserted here... as notability of any topic is detemined through its coverage, no matter what may have prompted media to write about the topic. The discussion here is now more about whether proper presentation of this information would overburden another article, or if there is enough to allow a stand-alone as a sensible spinout toward increasing a reader's understanding. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the news reports do not establish any topic of enduring notability. They all report on movement toward a possible film—that is the encyclopedic topic. This topic has yet to solidify, as projects in the film industry are not guaranteed to reach production. The reports are not looking backward and detailing an attempt at production, so we cannot suddenly reinterpret the reports to declare that the plans for the film, regardless of whether the film itself ever happens, are notable. That is a misrepresentation of sources. A better situation in which to keep is if there is retrospective coverage of a failed project, and contemporary news reports can be used to provide additional details. The news reports are an extension of the popularity of the Godzilla franchise, so it is proper to have such details at the franchise article. The franchise is enduring, and the plans for this franchise-based film are not. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eduring coverage toward a Godzilla reboot is not some recent news blip. So yes... per policy and guidline there can be found a notability of topic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is that we are not a crystal ball, that we should not have unverifiable speculation. We are often able to verify plans for films, so this is not a problem. These guidelines do not elaborate about films (though it does point to WP:NFF). However, it is worth looking at #1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I would argue that this is applicable to films. People can talk about their attempts to put together a festival, and news reports can report on these attempts, but if there is not a near-certain likelihood of the festival taking place, it should not be included. The same logic applies to films. There are always people out there trying to make some kind of film, and if there is some basis for reporting, such as a franchise or a famous filmmaker's involvement, there will be news coverage. But development is not a stage of near-certainty for scheduled release of the produced media. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not have any issue reporting discussion of a future event. The problem is creating articles solely based on that discussion. That should not happen because as we see with events, we should not include them unless they are near-certain to take place. We cannot have an article that says, "John Doe, famous for something he did a decade ago, is planning a comeback with so-and-so festival, insert details of plans here despite no indication that the festival will come together." Same concept with films; they need to be anticipated with near-certainty. The trade papers will report on every action in the film industry, and the blogs will nag filmmakers about what is happening with so-and-so project in development. None of this means that a planned film is near-guaranteed to be released. The trade papers and the blogs perform this kind of routine news reporting about the future. They were written with the topic of the film in mind, and they cannot abruptly be used as the basis of the topic of plans for a possible film in mind, isolated from the film itself. It is ridiculous to claim that because there was a year or two between news reports of a project entering development and a new screenwriter coming on board means that it is significant coverage that makes it a topic of enduring notability instead of just news as part of the cycle. WP:NFF works because like I said below, development news will peter off, and an article is in unencyclopedic limbo when it does not know what the next step is toward a produced film, if there is ever a next step. In contrast, with a film in production, we know that something will happen with it. It could be a normal release or a failure specifically worth reporting. Relegation of content to the articles that made the related plans worth noting indicates that there are just plans, and there is not a topic of enduring notability to be had. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even as the reduced article is properly addressing the speculation as per the relevant policy on speculation, an insistance of "near certainty" of any event runs contrary to that policy and its instructing us that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur. As the article discusses the background of the proposed project and the prospects and development toward its success (or yes, failure) it is just as policy instructs. Policy does not require any certainty of anticipated events, and an allowable speculation is just that - an allowable speculation. And if the coverage somehow peters off... we deal with it if or when that happens and consider and at that time might look to WP:NTEMP to see if its failure still merits inclusion of the topic... for even were it to never be made, the coverage of this topic is already more than just a brief NOTNEWS blip.[1][2][3] The article will need expansion and editing to show the course of events over years, and not simply be of the "latest" develpoments... but that would seem a matter for regular editing. And yes, once any film concept becomes a "film-in-progress", we have a greater expectation of certainty, but certainty is not an absolute in determining topic notability, and even after entering principle photography a film might be halted... so even "certainty" is uncertain until the theaters open. But this might all have been far better discussed on the article's talk page, with continued regular editing addressing on how to best present the years of speculation toward the reboot.. and I see from article's history that indeed editors had been working to improve the article for many months.[4] An AFD in September resulted in a consensus keep.[5] Four months later, and without going to DRV to contest the earlier closer's decision to keep a prior AFD whose nominator used that same erroneous argument about NFF disallowing any policy encouraged speculation, the article was sent again to AFD,[6]. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the film stopped development now, it would not warrant its own article. There would be no topic of enduring notability, and there are no key events that would have happened to warrant a historical article. It would become a footnote in the franchise article. A lot of key events in a project's development could warrant a historical article, but here we have the standard baby steps toward production that are routinely reported by trade papers and blogs. There have been plenty of projects that enter development where editors cited news reports to create articles as if the films were shoo-ins, but they are ultimately reduced to footnotes. The problem is the mentality of creating an article that is more likely to become a footnote than to cover a topic of enduring notability. Projects in development need to start out as footnotes (as discussion is appropriate to report) because they are not near-certain to become these topics of enduring notability. This project is not special; projects of similar franchises have faltered. AFDs are also problematic because the options appear to be black and white (keep or delete), when most discussions like these should be about merging. A project like this warrants mention somewhere, yes, but it does not warrant its own article from the get-go. At the previous AFD, what editors should have seen are Legendary's announcement to produce the reboot and perhaps a mention of the Comic-Con presentation. Instead, the article was filled with unencyclopedic rumors and gossip that exaggerated the "topic" and led it to be kept. Like in past AFDs of similar projects, there is excitement because we think the film will come out. We should not ignore the fate of most projects in the film industry and assume that a planned film is a made film. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most discussions like these should be about merging." I noted in the AFD rationale that there is already a place: Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot where the salient facts are noted, using the same references. I'm sure that those following the topic will update that if and when anything happens, so the "project" would not be erased from Wikipedia, it just wouldn't have a stand-alone article. If a formal merger would be preferable for any administrative reason, I'd certainly support that.Barsoomian (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Deletion policy encourages that merge discusions take place on the article's talk page as an alternative to shunting something to AFD. There are even templates that are to be used to initiate such discussion. Did you discuss this with any of the numerous editors who had worked on the article since last Summer? And if so, could you share those links? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since all the relevant information is already at the target, there's no reason to merge. This article is simply redundant, and can be deleted without any licensing problems.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any one editor's opinion of what is relevent or not in the "appropriate discussion and argument toward the prospects for success or failure of a proposed event and whether some development will occur", should be measured againt the applicable policy and its specifiacly addressing the appropriateness of such discussion. And while yes, with the bulk of its sourced information removed, the reduced article apears more redundent... but the original was not until edited to more closely mimic the lessor information in the franchise article. Naturally, ANY spinout could be reduced to a few sentences and then redirected to its parent... but this opens another question as to whether or not such reductionist editing actually serves to increase a reader's understanding of a topic, or limit it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're being disingenuous. You know I didn't. You're trying to score some procedural point by implying that I should have. Good luck with that. To clarify: I considered proposing a merger, but after looking at Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot didn't see anything important in the then-current Godzilla (2012 film) that wasn't already mentioned in the mother article, so just deleting seemed the obvious option. Obviously though merging is always an option for the closing admin, regardless of what the proposer initially said. Barsoomian (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disingenous? Not at all... as I do not track your edits, and you may very well have discussed the possibility of a merge with the involved editors on other pages. Thank you for clarifying you did not. Your disagreeing with an earlier consensus to keep, and sending an article again to AFD, is not against policy or guideline.. and I just wanted to know whether or not it had been discussed anywhere else before being done. And any one editor feeling he knows best what reaaders might or might not wish to know about the development of this proposed reboot of Godzilla, is an allowable point of view... but that many others worked on improving the article since last Summer seem to show that others feel differently in that readers might actually wish to know something more than just a minimlist mention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above response is the very definition of "disingenuous", making sundry unpleasant accusations while "thanking" me for clarifying. I won't rise to the bait Barsoomian (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make no "accusations" and quite politely asked for clarification. I had asked you earlier to not to put words in my mouth, or make unfounded declarations or bad faith assumptions... and as your comments again aproach a violation of WP:CIV, I would ask AGAIN that you stop. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think by signing the director that it has reached the point of near-certainty of being made. He turned down the directorship of the sequel to Monsters. What is in doubt is the time frame. That's planned, and arguably speculative. Move the article to a non-dated article, such as 'Godzilla Reboot film project'. I would agree with you about self-promotion for many many many projects, (Hollywood is famous for that) but Legendary does not have that sort of track record. And this project is following the normal trajectory leading to a film. I am aware that a previous project exists in the Godzilla line. Banno's "to the max" project was that very type of project, looking for backers, etc. and was initiated independently. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of near-certainty is when filming begins. It is highly likely at that point that a film will come out, so that is used as the threshold. Even if filming shuts down, such an event will often lead to retrospective coverage about what happened to the production. In contrast, development news often peter out. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter report movement on projects, but they rarely report on non-movements. In addition, despite certain franchises being famous, they still have trouble making films. It took years for studios to come out with new Superman and Batman films. It took a long time for the first Spider-Man film to get produced. Jurassic Park IV has been enthusiastically advocated by the supposed director, but it has yet to get beyond development. Justice League was canceled because of a writers' strike, even though a lot of babyface casting was done. Many, many Marvel films have been in development forever, and the formation of Marvel Studios has helped start producing them. Even so, there are films like Ant-Man that drag their feet. I have worked a lot with future films, and there have been numerous articles created because of news reports seemingly guaranteeing a film. To cite a recent example, Priest (2011 film) has been in development since 2005. My point is, WP:NFF was written to avoid the so-called gut feeling that a film will get made. The start of filming is a threshold that we can use because there are far less situations in which there is insistence that there will be a film. Prior to the threshold, reports on plans for film adaptations fall under broader articles, such as the source material (such as Concrete Island) or the famous filmmaker with various plans (such as Neil Marshall#Planned films). It's obviously a mouthful to convey this explanation about how these guidelines have a tried-and-true real-world basis, but I'm trying to do so here to show that these plans are not an indicator of amounting to a topic of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near certainly" is not what policy requires... it instead requires verifiability that whatever speculaton is being reported is itself well sourced. And my own sense of why NFF was written was to simply avoid an overflow of articles (predictive or not) that lack sources or notability... and wax comparisons aside, even then it is encouraged that such less notable information or discussion might be better included in the main article on a topic.. and then spun out if ovwerburdening the parent topic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with guideline, in general. Really, the issue is how to handle this project, which is notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The question is whether as part of the franchise page or stand-alone. I vote for stand-alone as there are so many others in the franchise, and the franchise page is heavily summarized. Also, there are aspects, such as it being made in America utilizing the Toho design. It's a bit too big for the franchise page, already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the other unmade film articles you cite (hey, aren't you the guy chiding me for WP:WAX?) have a serious investment of money and talent committed. This does not. Nothing has been done except naming a director, and printing a T-shirt. And I see you've already converted other speculative "films" into "projects", trying to sidestep deletion. Well, I hope someone with more pull than I have is paying attention to this attempt to negate the longstanding NFF policy. It is a policy, ("a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)") whether you like it or not. So, no, I won't "get over it" just because of your say-so. I quite dislike your characterisation of me and trivialisation of my concerns. I won't make any more comments at this AfD, so let's see if you are successful in "opening the floodgates" (words that you put in my mouth, a little sensationalist, but not inappropriate in this case). Barsoomian (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again... NFF is NOT a policy... is is a guideline (read its page header)... and the two are not quite the same thing. Definitions of each may be found at WP:POLICIES and WP:GUIDES. The page at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instructs "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules." And it's not me opening floodgates... but it's rather that through consensus of editors that the few rare exceptions shared above have come into being... of certain few projects being so widely discused in multiple reliable sources over a lengthy period of time that the projects have been found wothy of note. And no, the "floodgates" have not opened. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that it's a guideline, but common sense would indicate that films that fail WP:NFF generally should not have articles, and no one has shown that there is anything particularly unique about this pile of gossip and rumour that would distinguish it from the piles of gossip and rumours that WP:NFF is intended to avoid. Converting it into a "project" article is just sleight of hand.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... but common sense and consensus has also allowed a very few rare exceptions to NFF... exceptions that through the depth and length of enduring coverage have demonstrated notability per guideline. And through policy stating "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" and through the plethora of provided sources, we have one of those rare exceptions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jhenderson, I revised the article and identified the key events out of all the rumors and gossip. What results is a pretty short article, not worth incubating but instead merging to the franchise article, since the franchise is a notable one that led to news reports about this project. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with treating it like a "film project" article, like the Hobbit. That's the best approach. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things that may never happen fall under WP:CRYSTAL, and I have nothing backwards: WP:N is not a mandate to include content. There are millions of things that can be reliably sourced to multiple independent sources that should never have Wikipedia articles written about them, and films that fail WP:NFF generally fall in that class. Leave the gossip and rumors to websites where they are appropriate, and don't include them here.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... discussion of future events falls under the policy dealing with such... but it is just that policy that specifcally advises "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". And the argument about millions of articles we do not have aside, this information would overburden the franchise article. And as it is appropriate per policy to in some manner discuss future events if properly referrenced, we have one of those very rare policy encouraged exceptions to guideline... as long as the article IS properly referenced using the plethora of available reliable sources... and yes, we can certainly leave gossip to the non-rs websites and only use such information as can be attributed to RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper. We are not under any sort of resource strain to include an article that obviously is of interest, by the numbers of page hits. As I've mentioned above, the project has been reported on by professional news organizations, not just blogs and the what not. Even a film which has started photography can be cancelled. Those that have started filming still must show notability. That's what I meant by backwards. This project has the notability. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reader interest is completely irrelevant. Neither of you has demonstrated anything intrinsically different about this project that would make it suitable for inclusion. WP:N is not a suicide pact: it doesn't force us to include articles about things that don't warrant an article, and film projects that may never come to pass don't warrant articles, regardless of coverage.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, coverage is what it is all about. And with further respects, your conclusion is provable incorrect, as a few rare allowed exceptions do exist. The intrinsic and demonstrable difference between this topic and the others that would not merit being one of those very few rare exceptions, is in it having persistant and enduring coverage over many years and in many reliable sources, showing the topic itself to be worthy of note. And while I have many times happily opined a deletion for unmade films that failed our most basic notability standard... this one exceeds that standard. But as you feel that such exceptions are not to be allowed, you are quite welcome to buck the existing consensus that has allowed a very few and rare exceptions, and re-nominate The Hobbit film project, The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers film project, and X-Men: First Class (film project) for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that such exceptions are never allowed, simply that the kind of coverage this topic has received doesn't rise to it. All the reliable sources are reporting are the existence of rumors, gossip, and a t-shirt. That doesn't warrant an article.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Sorry... what you did write was "film projects that may never come to pass don't warrant articles, regardless of coverage"... and it was that statement that I was addressing, as ANY film, even one that has commenced principle filming, could still die before an actual release, and even the event of failure could be determined as notable (it's happened). Any reliable source reporting on an anticpated future event would, by its very nature of it being anticipatory, be speculation until the event takes place... and if the coverage were minimal or recent, I would tend to agree and be considering delete alongside you... but it's in that speculation and coverage in reliable sources being over a many years period that this topic becomes worthy of note. Yes, we're back to the topic's enduring coverage, but not the seculatuve nature of that enduring coverage, as the inclusion threshold is verifiability, and not about the truth (or not) of what is offered and cited to reliable sources. As an article whose topic is a discussion of the film and film concept and progress over a many years period,[17] it (just) merits inclusion. I am reminded of policy's stance toward anticipated events that have not or might never happen when it advises the "subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," and "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". As speculation is allowed, and as long as Wikipedia editors do not insert their own opinions or analyses, I would think those cautions would certainly apply to an article which is discussing a new Godzilla film. But we can agree to disagree... yes? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal does not mean we are not allowed to discuss future events, that policy specificaly allows such topics as long as they are well sourced (as is this one) and as long as editors do insert personal opinion (which no one has). Can you provide any reliable source that speaks toward a 2014 release? IMDB and its unreliabilty would seem to make it useless for such speculation (specially as they do not ever provide their sourcing), and anticipation of future events are by their nature speculative, and per both policy and guideline, that speculation MUST be supported by reliable sources. IMDB just ain't it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project is started. The only part of the article that is speculative is the date. That would be the same of any film project, as release dates can change. The speculation only seems to be on imdb's part. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be mentioned that it has always been an expected 2014 project until Legendary announced that they hoped to finish it in 2012. Toho announced in 2004 that the character would be on hiatus for ten years. I was not able to see if it was ever called Godzilla (2012) on IMDB. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, not all film projects which are started are eventually finished. When/if the movie is finished this won't be a problem. I'm sort of thinking of Halo (the movie ... that wasn't made ... but was started up in preproduction several times). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. This is the kind of article that WP:NFF specifically attempts to prevent. There's no reason to have an article dedicated to a floundering project, and nothing about this particular floundering project makes it an exception to the general rule.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even the topic of film that is never made can be found notable through its coverage, and the excessive anount of coverage meets, and is not an exception to, "the general rule" for a topic that is not (yet) a film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFF is a guideline whereby the Film wiki project grants an article notability after filming starts, so that deletion requests are not done. General notability should still be established for even those, but they get basically a pass. An article can still be written on a topic that has general notability, which this project does have. It does not need the film project's thumbs up or down. The hostility is surprising. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It surprises you that there are people who don't think there should be articles about speculation, gossip, and rumors? What project have you been working on? It isn't a matter of needing approval from the film project (of which I am not a member). WP:NFF represents the long-standing consensus of how to decide that the a project has moved along far enough to warrant an article, regardless of coverage. Meeting general notability guidelines makes something eligible for an article, but doesn't guarantee that the topic gets one.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the other way around. Those articles given the NFF guideline green light must still pass general notability. That's the difference between a guideline and a policy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing whatsoever to do with "the difference between a guideline and a policy". WP:N and WP:NFF are both guidelines. WP:N is rooted in WP:V and WP:RS, while WP:NFF is rooted in WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. No guideline or policy anywhere on Wikipedia says "it is mandatory to have an article about every topic mentioned in two reliable sources". This topic is one that should not have an article, regardless of sourcing, and WP:NFF explains why. Please note that I'm not saying the topic doesn't meet WP:N, I'm saying that it doesn't matter: the issues raised by WP:NOT#CRYSTAL are substantial enough to indicate that we shouldn't have the article regardless of sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't demonstrated a single reason that this film is different from a million other unstarted projects, and have demonstrated no reason whatsoever to ignore WP:NFF. Saying we are permitted to have the article is one thing, and I can't argue that the article isn't permitted. What you haven't demonstrated is any reason that we should have an article. There's all sorts of things that people can do that they shouldn't. Writing this article is one of them. There is so little substantial material that it belongs in the franchise article, not split out. I am looking to guideline, the topic doesn't meet WP:NFF, and moving it to a "project" article is simply a subterfuge in an attempt to evade relevant guidelines.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No film, but a project exists. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semantic masturbation as far as I'm concerned; a "project" doesn't mean anything other than "we don't have enough info to call it an actual film yet". As long as it is only in the conceptual stage, it warrants a mention another article, i.e. one about the movie franchise in general, not a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter the extensive coverage of a topic of a project in deveopment, as a disambig, Title (film) is not to be used, nor is a film infobox to be used, unless or until principle filming has begun. And when an amiguous article Title needs to be disambigged in these rare cases, Title (film project) is the format. So not a "jack move", but one that is intended only to remove any misimpression to Wikipedia readers that the the article is about a finished film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course NFF isn't the final nail but there's nothing that convinces it's one of those "rare exceptions" that should be let through. I actually did read the comments above, after I'd formed my opinion independently, and I'm not swayed by any of the comments. As for IMDB, that it's unreliable is actually a good thing here as it demonstrates that nobody really knows what's happening with this. Despite the unreliability, fan rumours are often correct. The project doesn't meet WP:GNG either, as most of the pages that mention it are unreliable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you read it, as the page has become quite long. Interesting conclusion, and while I know that unreliability is why IMDB is unsuitable, I had not realized that media sources with otherwise accepted reputations for fact-checking and accuracy could also be determined as unreliable if it is speculation upon which they researched and reported. No doubt WP:RS will be modified in the future to clarify that despite requirement of such sources by policy, coverage of an anticipated event in reliable sources will be determined unreliable and not count toward confirmation of that the speculated event itself being covered, even if in otherwise reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:CIVIL. The previous revision used a blogspot.com reference, reported on rumors about a possible director and a possible script, used references redundantly, talked about online confusion about real and fake designs, had a misleading passage about Bekmambetov being involved, a couple of fluff (promotional) quotes, references IMDb for the release year (when they have no basis for the year), and reports indiscriminate marketing details that are barely pertinent to the actual topic of the film. The current revision is streamlined, highlighting the key events related to the project. When If the project enters production, there will be actual events and details to report. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry -- should have put a smiley in there. :-) I often forget. Not a comment on the content, but the writing. ;-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current version is quite different from the original... that's for sure. :) As Wikipedia's goal is to aid a reader's understanding of any topic, there should some reasonable way to contextually add back some of the sourced historical background of its early development, rather than overlooking all coverage of the development processes that led to more recent events... for as with any article there must be balance, and that the project has evolved is worth contextual discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most editors adding to it are treating it as an article about a film. Every few days someone restores the "Film" infobox. And the Godzilla (2012 film) redirect encourages it being linked in various lists and other articles as if it were a completed film. I don't think that documenting all the hot air that the promoters create is worthy of an article; and if it were a much less gullible attitude should be taken, as most of the pronouncements of what the film "will be" are pure wishful thinking/crystal balling. Barsoomian (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2011 (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.
More