Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (4th nomination)

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 keep. A merge or move can be discussed at the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film)[edit]

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

From the talk page:

"All of the sources are old, IMDB page doesn't look to have been updated for a long time. Still no actors attached to the film. This was just rumor five years ago, seems like the project is dead for now. Vote to delete it until there is verifiable word that this is happening. (Sorry if I'm doing this all wrong, I haven't wikipediad in a while.)" 76.126.93.56 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — 76.126.93.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors update sources for articles already determined as sourced enough. See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP, and WP:DEADLINE. If more recent sources are wished, they are available. What is required to determine any topic's notability, is the availability of sources... and not that they actually be in an article on that topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge page - The last time Brad Bird has mentioned this movie was a few months ago. An interview in March mentioned that he seems confident in it, but it doesn't mention what the studios think. Again, no further information. Either delete the article or merge it with an existing page (Bird's page seems more likely). Freshh (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - merge discussion should take place first Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This AfD discussion was missing the template and was not transcluded in a daily log. I have refactored it to include the templates and trancluded it in today's log. Please consider the incomplete listing when considering the appropriate time to close. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week~~ Keep per continued coverage, perhaps specially due to its setbacks, which has allowed this one to be one of those very few allowed exceptions to WP:NFF in that the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines and through its meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CRYSTAL's All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced and in its otherwise surpassing the instructions per WP:GNG's If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. We CAN speak about this topic somewhere, and WP:NTEMP instructs that we do not require something that had enough coverage in the past to somehow remain in the news or have continued and ongoing coverage. As for IMDb page on this project not being updated... so what? We're not IMDb. We do not demand nor expect ongoing and continued editing of any article, once notability has been determined. And a point well worth consideration, is that even if not yet greenlit, Brad Bird's wish to make a film about the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 continues to receive coverage: "Brad Bird gives update on his 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Film Project", Geek Tyrant, December 2011 "Brad Bird's Latest '1906' Project Update and Why It's Taking So Long", First Showing, December 2011 "Brad Bird Says The Script For '1906' Is Still In Progress ", MTV, December 2011 to support the years of ongoing topic coverage.[1][2] We learn that while the project is by no means dead, his wish to make the film has been held off due to his now directing 1952 for Disney.[3][4][5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move and change emphasis. As this is an adaptation of a "best-selling" novel, why is there no article for the novel? We could solve this problem by rewriting the article to focus on the novel with a section on the film adaptation, and moving it to 1906 (novel), leaving behind a redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting propositions... either rewrite the film article and then move it to 1906 (novel), or create an article on the novel which would include information of the proposed screen adaptation, and then do a redirect. But which has the greater sourcable notobility... the novel, or the peristant-over-years coverage and reports of Bird's plans to make the film? Personally, I feel the persistant and ongoing coverage of Bird's plans push at being an exception to WP:NFF, but as the book exists and the film does not (yet)... tell ya what... I'll see if I can cobble something together and get back to this dicsussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended time period. Whether or not it's ever finished is irrelevant. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not think that the information would therefore be better presented on a page about the novel, as a failed or ongoing attempt to film the novel, as per my suggestion above? This would satisfy WP:NFF and may stop the repeated nominations for deletion that the page is getting. As Michael mentions above, the novel exists, the film does not (yet). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The planned film has far more in-depth and persistant coverage than does the novel. This is because the screenplay for the film came first... written and researched from 1996 through 1998. When the concept was pitched to studios in July 1998, Warner won the bidding war. They then had Dalessandro write three different drafts of his screenplay. After 1998, Dalessandro used his screenplay research to create the novel he later published in 2004. Even if it were never be made, the planned fim would be notable per its persistant and extensive coverage. This is why guidelines are not policy and reasonable exceptions are allowed if doing so improves the project and increases (not limits) a reader's understanding of a topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 1906 (novel). Novel is notable, with some coverage here:[6][7][8][9][10][11] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In reseaching souces for these two related topics, I had found those book reviews. But the screenplay and film plans preceeded the 2004 novel by several years and have far more persistant and enduring coverage. And while the novel is notable, if we place sources for each on a scale and weigh them against each other, the planned film is far more so. Heck... the novel is but a blip in the ongoing and persistant coverage and history behind the creation of the film. We would be wise to not ignore policy in this well-covered topic: Articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur. So we ask ourselves this question: Does the topic of this planned film already satisfy the primary notability criteria? Guideline indicates any topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by its meeting general notability through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case, the notable topic is the background behind the planning of a film, and not a film itself. Policy specifcally allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." And RARE exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed to be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a film-being-planned is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS), and either there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"), to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist. And IF a redirect target were to be created, we must then consider if a merge would then overburden the target or give too much weight to the topic being redirected, to the detriment of the target itself. Point here being, the depth of coverage of the planned film 1906 far exceeds that of its subsequent novel. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Enough sources to meet the GNG. Any opinion I have on a merge to 1906 (novel) can wait until there is such an article. The Steve 01:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did the work over the last few days,[12] and the article 1906 (novel) is now in mainspace. I think I did a pretty decent job and am now thinking over a suitable DYK. This done, I still feel that the film's production processes have more than enough coverage to merit being a stand-alone and growing article article at 1906 (film)... far more coverage than does the novel. In my own researches in writing the novel's article showed productions's greatest hurdle (past the projected budget and Brad Bird being assigned interim projects by Pixar), was the re-writing and trimming of James Dalessandro's original screenplay to make it into a project better suited to a feature length film, and as of February 22, 2012 a script was completed (after years of work). Further, as just last month, Brad Bird is still atached as director and Pixar has no plans to cancel the film. With Pixar's blessing for Bird to "branch out into live action", it looks like this one will get continued coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work Michael, as ever! Although I still think that if the information is presented well on the 1906 (novel) page (which it is!), then we have no need for the 1906 (film) page, until it meets WP:NFF. It still may be that the film is never made, and in this event, I personally do not think the coverage so far is sufficient to warrant a standalone article, so we should redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. I am proud of the contribution, and it needed doing. But I wish to underscore several points in my opting for a keep: In researching the topic, I found the film's screenplay resulted from Dalessandro's research into another topic AND preceded the novel by six years. The screenplay was optioned in 1998 and a director assigned and film discussion in multiple reliable sources continued through the novel's release in 2004. The novel did receive reviews after its release, yes, and that is why I wrote the article on the novel. But what is perhaps more cogent here, is that both before and after the novel's release, media coverage of the planned film continued. Post-2004 coverage of the novel has become simple mentions in continued coverage of film plans, but the novel being relegated to mentions is fine, as we do not expect coverage about a novel released 8 years ago to continue, and yet can still acknowledge that novel as notable. But at the same time, we look at the intent of WP:N and instructions at WP:GNG and understand that 14 years of continued coverage about the planned film, based on the screenplay which inspired the novel (even if the film is never made), make those continued plans a topic worthy of note. Had there been only a brief smattering of coverage back in the late 90s, I would probably be the first to concur that merely brief coverage would not qualify the topic for a stand-alone article. However, continued coverage in reliable sources for 14 years changes the issue. Exceptions to WP:NFF are few and far between, but precedent allows them if doing so improves the project and if articles on such topics are themselves encyclopedic, written in a neutral fashion, and properly sourced. IF the project were to be cancelled, we could revist the topic of the planned film and speak toward a redirect at the time... perhaps to the production companies, perhaps to the assigned director, or even perhaps to the novel or the novel's author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 11 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.