The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. The consensus is neatly summarised by Achowat's comment that "The AI is not intended to hold articles until their subjects are notable", particularly when no-one is working on the article. If and when this project no longer fails WP:NFILM then undeletion is an obvious possibility. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Star Is Born (2012 film)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as filming has been delayed, no cast is listed on IMDB, and IMDB also now lists this as a 2013 film. Additionally, this article clearly fails WP:NFILM, which states that "no film which has not entered principal photography should have an article." This movie has not. This article has, for these reasons, failed its AI assessment and should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments seem like standard policy. If the film ever happens this content can be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, as soon as principle photography has commenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:AI?. Current notability is irrelevant, as the film will become notable in time. —Andrew_stalk 02:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:CRYSTAL does seem to apply here. --Klein zach 04:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the mainspace. The article incubator is designed for articles being created and improved upon when they might not meet all the criteria for inclusion in the mainspace. This one, given the references in the article, appears to possibly meet even the mainspace criteria even though the release date keeps getting pushed back. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a bit of confusion here. There are criteria for deletion from AI, and it is under those guidelines that this article was nominated. That is why I noted the article failed its AI assessment (the results are on the article's talk page), as that is a major criterion. One other is not meeting policies (such as CRYSTAL and NFILM as noted) with no exemption for namespace, and another is no one actively working on the article, (45 days with no edits prior to the nomination). MSJapan (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that articles get moved to the incubator is because of current lack of notability. WP:AI? are the relevant criteria here; which of these does the current incubated article fail? —Andrew_stalk 08:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AI? is to put things in, not to take them out. Further down the page (WP:GRADUATE is a shortcut to the relevant subsection of WP:AI), there is a section on deletion, which reads: "If an article has been assessed and does not meet the assessment criteria, and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with further work, and a reasonable time has already been given and there is no possibility it can meet the criteria with any further time allowed - the article should be nominated for deletion at WP:MfD."

As I noted earlier, the article failed its assessment (see the article talk page). It simply cannot meet relevant notability criteria (WP:NFILM) as it has not started principal photography (clearly stated in NFILM, precisely to avoid problems like this where a film can be delayed indefinitely). The main barometer for sources for film is IMDB; this potential film's page lists no cast, and has changed potential release date to 2013. Therefore, this is something that may not happen, which meets WP:CRYSTAL. I'd also note, that the lack of meeting NFILM is likely an "exclusionary criteria" that probably should have kept this article out of the incubator in the first place. The last criteria is reasonable time, and the article had not been edited in 45 days when I assessed it. Thereby, all the deletion criteria as laid out in AI have been met. MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a dispute over WP:AI? item 3. The way I read it, that means "the article could be improved to a point where it could be in mainspace." It could also be read to mean "the article will eventually be appropriate for mainspace, possibly without any actual changes" but given the mission of WP:AI, I think the former is probably closer to the intended meaning. You cannot improve something to overcome notability, and this does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. --N Y Kevin @888, i.e. 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. The AI is not intended to hold articles until their subjects are notable. Achowat (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable enough. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable film that will be released in the future. Lucas S. ^msg 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will leave the decision of actual weight of the last two commenters' statements to the closing admin, but I would note that Jivesh edits Beyonce Knowles articles almost exclusively and indicates on his user page very strongly that he is a fan of hers, so there may be some question as to whether Jivesh's statement can be considered objective at all. Lucas Secret's entire second talk archive is almost entirely made up of conversations with Jivesh. MSJapan (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I find this post very disrespectful. I don't edit Wikipedia to advertise Beyonce. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't accuse you of advertising her at all, actually. I questioned the objectivity of your statement. Considering the Beyonce graphics all over your user (and talk) pages, as well as the "Without Beyonce" section, "My GAs and FAs on Beyonce" section, and your tiled pictures of Beyonce with the caption "my eternal diva" on your user page, coupled with no citation of either policy or evidence in your keep statement, might perhaps give someone the impression that you are more interested in keeping this article because it involves a subject you are very interested in instead of looking at it objectively to assess whether it meets criteria. When a followup vote with similar lack of support comes up from a collaborator of yours on the same topic, that doesn't help matters. WP is not about liking something or not, and it is a problem when it appears that way. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever, but please next time don't bring this to me as to me, this is only an insult to all the work I have put on here on Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination's concerns. Filming hasn't even begun yet! — Status {^talk_contribs 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film, should be allowed in incubator.--Oneiros (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or allow userfication if kept blank while not being worked on. WP:NFILM, or more specifically the section WP:NFF, provides a very useful rule here. If principle photography has not commenced, there is no film, only an idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.