Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cross (2010 film)

: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. As unsatisfactory as WP:NFF is vis a vis our verifiability policy, it is a notability guideline that has consensus behind it here.  Skomorokh  00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[The Cross (2010 film)]]=

{{ns:0|M}}

:{{la|The Cross (2010 film)}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|The Cross (2010 film)}})

Hasn't begun shooting, outside of an imdb entry there is little evidence this is happening, although currently scheduled for a May 2010 release the script has been floating around since 2000, so news of it starting should be taken with a pinch of salt. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. If they start shooting, we can revisit through WP:DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow what an abuse of Wikipedia to post this so soon. JBsupreme (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe we can have this article once the movie is actually made... Netalarmtalk 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Gross violation of WP:CRYSTAL.Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for now by virtue of WP:NFF which states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". As of yet, there are no reliable sources confirming commencement of principal photography so the film clearly fails NFF. However, if and when principal photography does begin, the article is likely to get recreated and, at that time, it should be kept because it will have met NFF as well as WP:N due to already existing wide-spread RS coverage such as: [http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/orlando-bloom-movie-the-cross-could-be-filmed-in-hunter/1575515.aspx], [http://www.movieweb.com/news/NExUUFBERI41BC], [http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=story&id=2476&articleid=VR1117999566&cs=1], [http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=52567], [http://www.screeninglog.com/journal/2009/2/6/orlando-bloom-joins-niccols-the-cross.html], [http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/02/05/orlando-bloom-heads-to-the-future-for-sci-fi-the-cross/], [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/orlando-bloom-roped-in-for-the-cross_100151480.html], [http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/10793/tcid/1], [http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/05/orlando-bloom-s/] and many more. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment: My !vote above is purely procedural based on existing policies and guidelines as they apply to the article's subject. For future reference in a case like this, I would advise to not nominate an article like this one for deletion just yet. There are many reliable sources about the film's pre-production process and there is suggestion that the principal photography will begin in September. Should principal photography begin in September, the article will be re-created within days of being deleted. The better option would have been to watchlist it until approximately the end of September and then do a quick search on whether photography has begun or not. If it has, expand the article accordingly. If it hasn't, go ahead and nominate. I'm sort of using WP:IAR here because the film clearly fails a specialized notability guideline but experience coupled with procedural knowledge of our policies and guidelines tells us that the deletion will only be temporary. If this film had no sources indicating principal photography being imminent, I say go ahead and nominate. But this is a borderline case where even WP:CRYSTAL may not apply because CRYSTAL says "individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Notability of this film exists by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources and the ambiguous wording of "almost certain" allows for leeway on ascertaining the possibility of a future event. I still stand by my !vote above but I wish the article wouldn't have been nominated in the first place. There was a better way to handle it which was to wait a week or two and re-assess. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

::I have no problem with it being re-created once the cameras roll, as with any film under WP:NFF, but films are subject to delays, re-writes and casting changes, all or any of which can stop a film dead, but the fact that the article was created six weeks before cameras start is a problem with all film articles, and it means a lot of AfDs or PRODs as there is no applicable CSD section for "unremarkable film". At the same time Wikipedia film pages are rife with speculation whenever a film sequel gets mentioned so we have the blunt instrument of NFF and section redirects. At the same time the argument that "it will happen so why don't we wait" could apply to so many films which only really have an imdb entry (and the usual announcements in Variety). It's an odd situation, and I don't know any other way to resolve it than being firm and nominating everything that hasn't started shooting (with the exception of The Hobbit pt1 and pt2, which are in pre-production). Darrenhusted (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree with User:Big Bird and that was my approach when I added the "future films" template to the article some number of revisions ago; I was going to keep an eye on it and see if anything happened to the information about the film one way or the other. I think it's likely this will be recreated in a short while when principal photography starts, although it doesn't meet WP:NFF as it stands and I cannot quarrel with the nomination. I wish we had a kind of "holding tank" for articles like this. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. My thanks to Big Bird for the excellent research. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why pages like this are not ok, but movies like Pirates 4 have their own page, even though they have not started filming on that movie either.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzeyHellboy (talk • contribs)

::That page should be a redirect to the sequel section on the franchise page, and there is a merge discussion at the moment. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

: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.