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 Kkkkkkkkkeep as Claudius might have said. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, Claudius (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreleased film, very little verifiable info outside IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's some information here. I see no reason for outright deletion. Worst-case scenario, we can merge this somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Approve merge with The Epic That Never Was per Girolamo Savonarola's suggestion below - The info that is there is notable. Although unreleased the attempt was important to the careers of many involved, notably Merle Oberon and her page is one of several that link to this page. Most importantly, the documentary The Epic That Never Was contains virtually all of the footage from this film as well as interviews with Robert Graves, Alexander Korda, Flora Robson, Emlyn Williams and Merle Oberon. This documentary has been on both the VHS and DVD release of the 1970's BBC television serial of I, Claudius and, along with the biographies of those involved, there is much verifiable info outside of IMDb. As previously mentioned the fact that Ms Oberon's accident shut down production makes this a notable unfinished film. As expressed in the documentary Laughton's finding inspiration from the abdication speech of Edward VIII is another notable item. In closing this is not the only unfinished or lost film that has a page at Wikipedia and if there is an objection to the stub nature of this page I can direct readers to several that are far stubbier. MarnetteD | Talk 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The film was never made and the only "notability" claimed is coming from the a single documentary made about the film. There seems to be no actual significant coverage from unrelated primary sources. The stub seems to say all that can be said about it. At best, mention of it should be made in the novel article, as a planned but failed adaptation, and, of course, in Merle Oberon. Its being uncompleted by her accidental death does not make it notable for its own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPerhaps a little research may help your misconceptions Collectonian. Some of the film was "made", it was not completed. The footage filmed can still be seen. Wikipedia has many pages for films that have been lost and can never be seen. Should they be deleted since there "notability" cannot be verified. Ms Oberon did not die, she was only injured by the auto accident that she was in. This was the major reason, but not the only one, that production was shut down. There are biographies of several of those involved in the making of the film along with newspaper and magazine articles from the time which offer a myriad of unrelated primary sources. It is also a misnomer to call the documentary a primary source. The footage from the original film is a primary source. The various interviews, conducted more than 25 years later are not. MarnetteD | Talk 06:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Sorry, you said accident stopped it, I presumed she must have died that it couldn't go on. The article gives the same impression. If there wasn't even that, then really, what notability is being argued. Films stop mid production all the time, that doesn't mean they are notable just because of an accident nor do biographies of the principal players (they are notable, their notability does not confer to a failed project). A single documentary does not equal "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" nor does it inherently make the unfinished film notable. For the added part, if there are articles for uncompleted film that fail WP:N and WP:V, then yes they should either be prodded or brought to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry if you have been unclear on this. The claim is that only IMDb and The Epic That Never Was have any info on this film. There are also biographies of the principles involved along with newspaper and magazine articles (both those made at the time of filming and retrospective ones) that provide "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" that can be used to add to this page. Along with Oberon this project was important in the careers of Korda, von Sternberg, Laughton and Grave's. It's extraordinary to think that a project that was important/notable enough for the BBC to track down the original footage and the people involved for interviews almost thirty years after the project was abandoned isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps if any editors would take the time to view and read what is available about this film on something other than the internet then a fuller judgement could be made. Along these same lines if even one reader encountering this article on Wikipedia is sent from the internet to these other multiple sources to learn more about this unfinished film then the articles existance is justified. Of course, it is also amazing that these decisions are made by so few editors but that is the way it goes. Thanks for your input even though we disagree MarnetteD | Talk 07:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the previews I can see at Google Books, I'd bet that there is a substantial amount of information available on this project. However, it would probably require a library trip to gather all of it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to The Epic That Never Was. Problem solved, no? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea except TETNW redirects to I,C film. MarnetteD | Talk 07:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's easily enough fixed; plus, there is a realistic chance of expanding TETNW - as a completed film - along our normal style guidelines to a respectable quality level. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. There's probably more information on the film itself than the documentary about the film. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I just added three external links to the article; the notability of this subject is not in question. No offense to the nominator, but I am genuinely surprised to see this article here -- this is one of the most famous unfinished films in the history of cinema. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepor oppose deletion as the example of films that were aborted has been established as well, the notability of this project should not be in question, judging by the connections to Robert Graves, Alexander Korda, Flora Robson, Emlyn Williams and Merle Oberon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Don't forget Josef von Sternberg, the director! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on how many notable people were attached to the ill-fated project, including director Josef von Sternberg. Lots of notable, never-released/completed films have articles here too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The IMDB link has an 87% rating on this 1937 film. I think Wikipedia can accomodate an article on this film--which seems well sourced too. Artene50 (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Incomplete does not mean non-notable. Given the people involved in this one, it warrants an article. DGG (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Strong Keep Obviously notable. Besides sourcing available in books on the actors, writer and director, this unreleased film was the subject of a documentary. Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with I, Claudius or Alexander Korda. I saw the documentry which is a bonus feature on the DVD of the BBC television dramatisation: it features about 5 minutes of actual film footage, which was all that was filmed, because there was no script or finance for the project. The film is of trivial interest since, as the nominator states, there is very little verifiable info. This film definately fails WP:MOVIE, but may provide useful content for a more notable topic.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to improvements made during this discussion. Well done! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think a proposed/unfinished film is notable here on Wikipedia. --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's very odd. Do you perhaps mean that it's not notable? Or that it's not appropriate here on Wikipedia? Or not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? Whichever, can you please give some reasoning for this view? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have to share Ecoleetage's surprise at this AfD. This is probably the most notable unmade film ever not made. There seems to be a basic and serious misunderstanding of notability at work here. The film is covered in many, many sources, including at least one documentary on it. The fact that only a few minutes of the film were shown in a documentary dedicated to it has absolutely nothing to do with its notability. Many totally lost films are notable. This AfD is the equivalent of nominating the Unfinished Symphony because Schubert never got around to writing those last two movements, or the Colossus of Rhodes because who has ever seen it? Changing my "Keep" to "Strong" Dekkappai (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment OK-- I checked two books on von Sternberg and added 17 pages written in the director's autobiography on the film, and a 13-page chapter in The Cinema of Josef von Sternberg on the film. Is the absurdity of this AfD obvious yet? Also, I strongly oppose merging into the article on the documentary. If anything, the documentary should be merged here. But they should have separate articles since they are separate works. Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This may be prehistory for some, but even prehistory is notable. Too many reasons (the people inovlved, the subject of the proposed film, etc.) why this article should be kept, in anticipation of further expansion. Anyway, the film project will probably be revived by Hollywood some time in the near future and deletionists will be kicking themselves... Pinkville (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh yeah, regarding little verifiable info outside IMDb: even when sources are on printed pages (and not to be found on the Internet) they are still useable in Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. ;~) Pinkville (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Widely noted in reliable film sources, this should never have been brought to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, dammit, even though younger readers may be disappointed that the (non-)film (i) wasn't in the Star Wars or other "franchise", (ii) doesn't seem to have had notable computer graphics, (iii) hasn't yet been turned into a game, and (iv) doesn't have thundering, mind-numbing music by John Williams. (All four, and particularly the fourth, would be pluses for me; but that's just me.) Look, "von" Sternberg was a notable director, even if more notable for cigarette smoke, sultry looks and (presumably unintended) ridiculousness than for the sterling virtues of, say, Straub-Huillet. And if a moderately sane book on him devotes a full chapter to this (non-)film, the (non-)film is notable. (Meanwhile, I'm asking myself why anyone still takes IMDB seriously.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (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.