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 incubate. T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable future film. WP:NFF calls for the deletion of articles on films which have not started principal photography, except in the exceptionally rare case that the production of the film is itself notable. There is no indication in the article, its sources, a google search, or a google news search that the creation of this film has begun. SnottyWong ^verbalize 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any evidence that this film has commenced principal photography, hence not passing WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also completely fine with Redirect/Merge and Incubate as outcomes -- I am fairly confident that this topic will be beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt notable at some point in the future, so there's no reason to remove the content that currently exists altogether. Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for the nudge, MQS. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support merging verified info about this project to director John Boorman. Cliff smith ^talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support incubation, as discussed below. Cliff smith ^talk 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A new film based of one of the most famous books of U.S. literature, directed by John Boorman (a major film artist) and packed with plenty of news coverage: [1]. Even the Scarecrow could figure this one out! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline about the notability of future films, as cited by the nominator, states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Also, a "Google test" isn't always indicative of a subject having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Until this project becomes a production, it can be covered at the article of the project's reported director (John Boorman) and at Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. Cliff smith ^talk 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. Also, please read WP:GHITS for an explanation of Cliff smith's argument. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that the results of a Google search for something aren't always indicative of something being worthy of inclusion here. A Google search can return trivial mentions in "high-profile" sources. If it's just saying that some director is working on a project which is supposed to be released in the near future, that's not really significant coverage. Also, we shouldn't make the assumption that "because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." (Yes, that's also from WP:NFF.) Cliff smith ^talk 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be enough details in the existing coverage which trumps the movie guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which details are you referring to? WP:NFF is quite clear in that future films should not have articles until principal photography begins, unless the production itself is notable for some reason. Are you implying that you have sources which show that the production itself, independent of the film, is notable? If so, please let us know. SnottyWong ^confabulate 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ SW: There is a bit more to WP:NFF that is not being mentioned. It specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines, completed or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the guideline is that it's less concerned with details than it is with two things: 1) the reliability/permanence of these details and, more importantly 2) Is any notability reflected by existing coverage going to be permanent? In other words, is this production itself so plainly notable based on reliably sourced coverage that, even if this movie never actually exists, will it still be a notable topic? The guidelines suggest that only extreme cases pass the very easily applied "principal photography" hurdle -- is this film really an extreme case? Or is it just a movie that is in pre-production? There are a lot of those, and some of them are based on enormously notable sources. That this potential movie is based on a great book does nothing to establish the production's notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. Notability is determined by a topic meeting WP:GNG, and as per my !vote below, the topic so far, per the GNG and even as a merge/redirect if not a straight keep, merits inclusion somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Keep per meeting NFF, or p Per WP:ATD, either Incubate as worth delevoping away from article space, or Redirect/Merge sourced information to director John Boorman without prejudice toward recreation. And a note for clarification: WP:NFF does not call for automatic deletion of all articles in such cases, but specifically advises that such articles might merit inclusion if recieving coverage to satisfy other notability guidelines... and that event is not a "rare" as in being implied, and coverage as provided by Houston Chronicle, The Windsor StarMinneapolis Star-Tribune, Animation Magazine, Fantasy Magazine, Boston Globe, Cineuropa, Fantasy, Nina People, Showbizz, and MSNBC would seem to assure that the information has a place within these pages somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's not as though all mention of this project should be removed from everywhere altogether. I could understand an argument to WP:IAR and make an exception for a yet-to-be-produced film project to have its own article if information about that project was creating an undue weight situation at the article(s) about its subject material—but that is not the case here. Presently, it belongs at John Boorman and Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. No prejudice towards recreation here, either, by the way. Cliff smith ^talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as with the Dorothy of Oz discussion, NFF only advises that films be checked against other notability guidelines if the film can be shown, in reliable sources, to have "already begun shooting." This film has not been shown to have begun shooting, hence the direction regarding other notability sources does not apply. NFF very clearly states that unless a film has commenced principal photography it should not have an article, and there is no exception to this direction anywhere in NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But WP:N is the mother and all the rest of the SNGs her children... not intended to supplant the mother, only to supplement her. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. NFF, is one of the children of WP:N... and all her children rely a topic's meeting WP:GNG. If the GNG is met, it is met. Not having begun shooting, or ever shooting at all, does not affect how a topic itself being notable and worthy of inclusion in some manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith ^talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I aggree and added thoughts toward possibility of WP:Incubation accordingly, while striking my NFF keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate per Michael; or merge to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz though its adaptation section leaves much to be desired, until such time as it is in full production and this is confirmed in third-party, reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's still early in this film's life cycle, but there is enough coverage to justify notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (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.