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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Ranger (film project)[edit]

The Lone Ranger (film project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable in its own right. Fails guidelines at WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and there is nothing here that isn't already included at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, which is where it should be as per the guideline which also states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". Just by calling it a "film project" shouldn't be a way to circumvent established guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF's criterion about principal photography is unfortunately supported by bitter experience. There is already another failed film version covered at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, and this incarnation won't be any more notable if it's cancelled as well. Smetanahue (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the article includes this earlier failed attempt - looks like the editor that created the article copied the section verbatim. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the Article Incubator and let it continue to be developed there until it is ready to be reincluded in mainspace. As of now article fails both WP:NFF and WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article to speak of. Just information copied verbatim from The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film. Would suggest that information could be expanded there until it is ready for a breakout article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to think that the information could not be expanded or that more reliable sources will become available in the near future or that all the current available sources are being used. Policy dictates that all alternatives to deletion be exhausted before deletion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it could be expanded at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, where the text has been copied from. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that information stop being added to The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, just that editors who wish to continue to develop the article in article form be given the chance so that when it is ready it can be reincluded in the best possible state.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the notability guidelines for future films, which states not to have a stand-alone article until the start of filming. The "film project" articles are not supported by guidelines; they are the so-called occasional exceptions that need to be justified. (For example, The Hobbit had a stand-alone article due to WP:SIZE since there was much more coverage than normal, with a lot of reported-on activities.) This Lone Ranger project has been in development since 2002, over nine years, and news coverage of this non-topic is appropriate in the broader article about The Lone Ranger. The point of the threshold for the start of filming is to have a near-guarantee that a film will be made. Can anyone imagine an article created for this project back in 2002? It would be an article that would violate the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL over the years, constantly anticipating for a film to be released to no avail. An article about a fictional work is supposed to discuss its reception and significance. The start of filming as a threshold is very early since outsiders will not be able to assess it for a year or two, so to have an article even before that threshold is extremely premature. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about incubation as a solution? Also I do not see the need for redirection as the disambiguated title (film project) is not highly searched.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The negative aspect of incubation is that it puts coverage out of readers' sight. In addition, it is difficult to update both the "planned film" section in the mainspace and the incubated article in the project space. Incubation works best, IMO, if there is not that much coverage in mainspace. Some projects will have more pre-filming interest than others. This project seems covered enough in the mainspace; it doesn't seem like the kind of project that will draw a lot more coverage until after filming starts, unlike some superhero films. As for redirecting, the goal is to preserve page history. Redirects are cheap, and if filming does begin, we can move the "film project" article to the appropriate name to build on the existing page history. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information can be kept at both locations and good example of this is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Wolverine (film) and X-Men (film series)#The Wolverine. The move will both keep page history and allow to the article to develop in article form. Incubation is not meant to be substitute for the mainspace, infact it is meant to work alongside the mainspace.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to update both spaces, it's fine by me. :) I just think that incubation works when an editor is actively interested in working on both and making the same kind of expansion twice. For this project, I think it's a bit more energy than needed because it seems to me to be fairly easy to put together a stand-alone film article using the "planned film" section. It becomes a "Production" section, and the rest is easy to build around it. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This might be a better question to ask the editors who were already involved in this article, if they would rather maintain both or just the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can withdraw your nomination, i have moved the article to my userspace. it can be found at User:Rusted AutoParts/The Lone Ranger (film project) and i will move it back when filming is announced. I did this because it would be a shame if all that info is removed. And RobSinden, i said why i copied info from the planned movie section of The Lone Ranger in one of my edit summaries. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:13 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please let the AFD conclude. Unilateral action was unnecessary. Even people who want to redirect to a "planned film" section don't just bypass AFD and create the redirect themselves. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your edit summary that reads "making film project page. Don't yell at me for transferring info!"? That's hardly an explanation. Transferring info that was more suitable left where it was is all you have done, and used a "film project" article as an excuse to circumvent existing guidelines. And your comment that "it would be a shame if all that info is removed" seems strange, as it is still all where you copied it from. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article should not be moved out of mainspace while there is an ongoing AFD. We are not on deadline here. Since filming has not begun, and since many film projects never get made or languish in development hell for many years, the adequate coverage in The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film is all that is called for at this time. If the project moves forward, use the refs to expand and improve that section of the existing main article on the fictional character, until such time as it is long enough to make sense as a stand-alone article. There is no benefit in "userfying" this article which duplicates the section mentioned of the other article. Edison (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate this premature article per being WP:TOOSOON and not yet meriting as a possible exception to WP:NFF. Further, set a redirect of title to the section at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film, so readers can veiew the topic in context until such time as the incubated article may merit a return to mainspace. I agree with User:TriiipleThreat about incubation, in that articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. When a rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time, and a willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article, we have a very reasonable and guideline supported option that improves the project. If the article is improved, it might be returned. If it is not, it is deleted. Seems a win-win for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Lone Ranger (film project) actually a useful redirect though? If this film does go into production and becomes an article, it wouldn't be disambiguated as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before redirecting, we'd have a temporary "move" of the current article to the "film" title The Lone Ranger (film), and then a redirect of THAT title as a reasonable search term. This then preserves the history for such time as when the article might properly merit a spot in mainspace. Will only take the deleting Admin an extra half second to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Edison made a fantastic point. Once the film actually gets worked on and completed, the article will deserve to be made. Until then, all info should be added to The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Edison's points were adressing a premature userfication in that an article should not be moved during the course of an AFD, and that per WP:NFF what is currently in mainspace at The Lone Ranger#Planned Lone Ranger film is enough mainspace space about this project, for now, until such time as an independent mainspace article might be merited. His points were not addressing incubation for continued work out of mainspace, which reasonable option is entirely supported by guideline and serves to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 7 July 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.