Talk:Godzilla (2012 film project)

My Revision
Why was my revision removed? The article's just been reverted, and it sounds more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. "Legendary Pictures, creators of such films such as..." And why is the name capitalized? JohnVMaster (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Because when its a title of spmthing such as a book, movie, or name its capitalized and Godzilla is a name for both a movie and a monster and the reson its sound like a advertisment is because they havent put more facts out to the public yet.GZ411 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

To the maker of this page
This page is a complete duplicate. There is already an identical page. That is why this page is a canidate for deletion. --BNSF1995 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie TOHO
I was wondering if Toho is helping making it and it has the Toho seal will you move it to the milenium series or will it start as a new untiteld series.GZ411 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Brian Rogers
There was a blogspot.com article that covered this YouTube video. I reviewed the guidelines about using YouTube, and assuming that there is no copyright violation, we can reference the video and quote Rogers about his plans for the film. Does anyone else have an issue with this? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Script
inre this edit

Having easily found multiple sources that state that David Callaham wrote a script, and that Edwards is dealing with Timur Bekmambetov in its re-write, I have souced those facts and returned them to the article. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Multiple sources" saying Callaham was named as the script writer, not the same thing. No one has ever said they've actually read this supposed script or commented on it in any way. The HR article you cite says "Edwards will now work with a new yet-to-hired writer on the script. (David Callaham was the original writer.)" Does not say Callahan actually wrote anything. The Variety article says "Edwards is also expected to work on the script, written by David Callaham", which does, though it's just an assumption ("expected" -- by who?, why?) on their part. If it makes you happy, I'll leave that, though it's just namedropping, if Callaham ever wrote anything it's been discarded. However, I can't see in any of the sources you list that Bekmambetov is working on Godzilla in any capacity, let alone is (re)writing the script. So I deleted that. A little Googling found this report: "As for Edwards, he is planning an ambitious, big budget, futuristic film set in a 'post-human world' to be produced by Timur Bekmambetov", so they're working together, but on a different film. And they'll be doing that one first. Edwards said: "I am attached [to Godzilla] and we are just starting the process," so that's years away if ever; which probably explains why IMDB put it back two years. Barsoomian (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Timur Bekmambetov
Again, someone put this rumour back in. The claim that Timur Bekmambetov will write the script, or be involved in any way, is unsupported by any of the sources cited. He is working with Gareth Edwards on another project of his own, but not, as far as I can see, any Godzilla film. So I have again removed that statement from the article. Barsoomian (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Right thing to do. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hacking
If you guys are really voting for deleting this article, then why are you spending so much time hacking it up? It is obvious there is no writer amongst the lot of you! Even with the reporting of rumours, it was READABLE!!!! &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of the previous content failed WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV. I am advocating a merge of the current streamlined content to the franchise article. It was necessary to identify the key events because the stream-of-consciousness news reports and rumors misleadingly presented this topic as stand-alone when it is not. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Left out a smiley before. :-) Don't mean to sound so harsh, more wanting to sound like a wake-up call. I would advocate leaving it alone, or copying it to a user space. This is obviously a work-in-progress. :-) &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

T-shirt
That T-shirt keeps coming back. Is there any other article about a film (sorry, "film project") where a T-shirt is given such prominence, let alone a whole subsection? Should we just retitle the whole article Godzilla (2012) (2014) T-shirt where all the details can be given? After all it does actually exist, unlike the film, and there are 31,900 Google hits on "Godzilla T-shirt", so it obviously meets WP:GNG. Then we could just delete the remainder of the "film project" page. Barsoomian (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can discuss the promotion section a little more politely. I am fine with mentioning the presentation at Comic-Con 2010 in brief (and rather liked having it as a caption as context for the image). I do find the t-shirt detail to be extraneous and borderline non-neutral, though. It is not meaningful detail; kind of like saying the specific date a film's trailer came out, provided that there was no other kind of reaction. Would the Comic-Con detail in a caption suffice? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It made sense in the caption, but then someone pulled it back into its own section again. I'd have reverted it myself but I know that would just start a war. It's hard to keep a straight face when trivia like this is the main content of the article, so I hope my lack of reverence isn't offensive to anyone. Barsoomian (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would not be the only thing I would bring back. Between the people who want to put in rumours and speculation and you two wanting to make it completely terse, it is impossible to edit! ;-) I still do not know why you both -want- to edit it, when you're both wanting to delete the article? ;-) As for the t-shirt, when a caption is a whole paragraph, then that does not make sense. It needed a cite, as well. A photograph is to illustrate something -in- the article, no? As for the t-shirt, the important part was the augmented reality. That is fairly unique. Augmented reality promotions are fairly new, too. Just saying augmented reality, though, is meaningless. If you are concerned about prominence, simply remove all of the headings. Since there was a heading for development, it was inappropriate under that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience is that we have to work with marketing details with care. A franchise film like this one will have blogs tracking everything that happens in relation to the film, and it may not be as valuable in an encyclopedic article about the topic. For example, with augmented reality, I think it is indiscriminate to detail it because the marketing technique did not necessarily get people excited about the film in a unique way. Think Cloverfield's trailer, though the article is not quite so polished on the topic. A better example might be Valkyrie (film), which has more to do with the broad strokes of marketing the film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it is 'indiscriminate'? As of today, I'm not aware of other augmented reality promotions for films. Not something I follow closely, I'll admit. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "indiscriminate" as in it is not particularly relevant for this topic. For example, it may be better suited at augmented reality as an example of how one could see virtual elements emanating from a physical object (the t-shirt). However, it was not something that generated a ton of attention for the film. It was really the concept art that got people talking, which is why I am fine with mentioning the Comic-Con presentation and the art. The augmented reality technique was essentially a gimmick that did not have lasting value. My sense is that marketing details should be tempered with indicators of relevance from other sources. Cloverfields trailer was well-covered, and The Dark Knights viral marketing was also well-covered. There is not a lot of weight to detailing the AR novelty of teasing concept art for a film that may not be. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be important in an article about "augmented reality". As far as this film "project" is concerned, it's a trivial detail about a marketing stunt. Anyway, I won't spend my time shovelling stuff like that out if you're determined to shovel it in. Feel free to demonstrate to those  of us who are "obviously not writers" how to do it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fair and appropriate to clear out the s**t that goes against guidelines, but details that justify its inclusion have also gotten removed. I'm willing to defend the inclusion on its own terms. Legendary hired a leading comic book illustrator for the concept art, hired an outside software firm that is a leader in AR, then distributed some tens of thousands of shirts at the leading fan convention? That convention is not a local convention. That seems well-thought out and a good way to kick off the project. Also, I think by using concept art consistent with the Toho Godzilla, (and the breath and the Toho Godzilla roar) they showed some good faith to the fan base, that it would not be 1998 again. I would like to write that back in. And the image just be an illustration of that paragraph. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 17:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how the design of a T-shirt rates more than a passing mention in an article about a film. Maybe that's the difference with a "film project", when there isn't an actual film to talk about. (Though it's quite touching how you think that the design will have the slightest relation to the actual movie, should it come to pass.)  You've got a few days till the AfD is decided, show em what you got. Barsoomian (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research
The observation comparing and contrasting the Godzilla concept art to past incarnations is original research. For example, I could very well argue that this Godzilla looks more flexible and has longer arms than the Toho incarnation. The problem is, we are not in a position to make such observations, and in addition, this is concept art. There is no indication that the final product (if one is ever made) will look like the art. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only discussing the artwork as presented in the article. You are being overly fussy. I can understand rumours, etc. bugging you, but this? I will look for a cite. It does appear to me that you are hounding this article, which you already are on record as wanting to delete. Please consider that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith; I am citing policy here. Discussion needs to be cited, and even if this particular observation is cited, it is not relevant to the film when we have no idea what the creature will actually look like. In addition, I wanted to merge the article's content to the franchise article, which is different from outright deletion. I am interested in reporting plans in the right place and creating stand-alone articles when plans become films-in-making. For example, I am incubating Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby at Article Incubator/The Great Gatsby (2012 film). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked -you- to consider your edits, please don't turn it around. You've been doing lots of reverts. In this case, as I said, the sentence only discusses the artwork presented in the article. It's not extrapolating anything. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now added a citation. If you continue to nitpick, I will consider asking an admin to look into this. I'm not sure I can assume good faith anymore, seriously. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am only taking a high-quality approach to the article. It was in bad shape when it was posted for deletion. We have reported what has actually happened so far, and it is too easy for padding to occur. It happened here and after some discussion has been summarized more concisely. Here, this is the passage in question: "Legendary commissioned a new conceptual artwork of Godzilla, similar and consistent with the character seen in the Toho films." The italicized part comes from none of the sources but the editors themselves. Policy says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I have looked for sources to provide additional commentary on the concept art, but it is simply not a recurring detail. None of the sources talking about the new director even mention it. That's indicative to me of how unimportant it is to be describing so much of the art and the related marketing. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reviewed the source. I see that the website makes the comparison. But earlier in the article, it says, "Turns out that Legendary is saying that, while the image is definitely theirs, it isn’t necessarily related to the film in development. That’s confusing. Why would Legendary toss the image around at Comic Con if it isn’t neccessarily related to the film? Sure, it could be early concept art and not to be taken as final, but to downplay even the relation to the film is odd." That was my second concern, that even if it is sourced, is it really meaningful? Like I said, none of the coverage about the director referred back to the art. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Could not find a source for this.
Legendary Pictures announced to discontinue the movie due to the quake and the Fukushima I nuclear accident. So removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.132.209 (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing to redirect
I have redirected this to Godzilla (franchise) as this article clearly fails 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 budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production."

All of the text has been preserved at the location of the redirect as per the WP:NFF guideline: "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available."

I see that this has been sent to AfD before, but i'm being bold, and reading through the discussion, consensus was split (possibly even in favour of delete/merge). However, this article should not exist under WP:NFF, and there is no reason, given the the length of the article, that it can't and shouldn't be included at Godzilla (franchise). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, would like to say that I understand the need for these so-called "film project" pages for exceptions like The Hobbit (film project), but there is nothing exceptional about the development of this film. In fact, I think that this is exactly the kind of article that WP:NFF is in place to stop.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but everyone thinks that THEIR project should be an exception. And soon you create a loophole that any "eagerly anticipated" film will qualify for, regardless of how far it is from actually being realised. Barsoomian (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The exception being an extreme case, where there is an unprecedented amount of media coverage that cannot otherwise be contained in "articles about its subject material". --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that the amount of media coverage is itself enough to make something notable. The film media is happy to run any press release without critical examination if they can hang an article on it mentioning some celeb or popular movie. Fifty articles all saying that Edwards is attached as a director doesn't make that fact any more significant -- especially when he is committed to doing another movie first. Barsoomian (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong - I'm with you. WP:NFF clearly states that these articles shouldn't exist. However, if you do take The Hobbit (film project) as an example, there's a lot of information there that couldn't realistically be housed elsewhere.  This article does not have this problem though, as all information sits nicely on the Godzilla (franchise) page.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper. When something is notable, it does not have to belong to any 'project'. The projects are supposed to be 'supportive' of positive results. Like promoting the coverage of 'x'. Not attack an article three times. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're trying to get at here. But the guidelines are here for a reason. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had argued twice for the keep of an article, then not long afterward, the can of worms is opened again, would you not feel like the article is being bullied, gamed or attacked? The film project is to support coverage of films on Wikipedia. It's a positive 'mission', not justification to go after articles that don't fit. Less police, more nurture. If an article is not deleted twice over a guideline, why open that again? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really am at a loss to explain how it wasn't deleted last time it was nominated when WP:NFF is so clear. I don't agree that the closing admin made the right decision as consensus to me seemed to fall on the side of delete.  I think the reason it keeps getting nominated isn't due to some of victimisation, but due to the fact that it falls so clearly against policy.  We can't have articles for every film not yet underway that may or may not be produced.  That said, I wasn't advocating a delete, merely preservation of the material somewhere more appropriate.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NFF is a guideline. The policy is that an article must be notable and an encyclopedic topic. The NFF guideline basically is there to define the line as to when an article can be allowed on Wikipedia without challenge. It's there for a reasonable control. By itself, it -does not- define notability. An article must always be notable (reliable sources, etc). It does not always have to conform to the NFF guideline. That's what was argued twice. Some things you may not also know: There is a high level of interest in it, separate from the existing franchise. It has more history than is reflected in the article. I had to fight to add the opening paragraph about the closure of Toho and 10-yr hiatus. And had to fight to note the image was like the Toho films and not the 1998 film. And to note that it was to be a 'reboot.' The compromise was to remove the film infobox and headings and be a stand-alone article as a notable project. And some editors removed a lot of the content, for various reasons. That also seems to have been omitted in your analysis. The rework was done to conform to the Hobbit article style. Since then, every edit seems to be scrutinized by Barsoomian and Erik. You come along and bam, it's still not good enough to be a stand-alone article. Moving it to the franchise article is the second-best spot for the content IMO, but who wants to keep fighting the NFF 'police'?. :-) As well as those who put rumours into the article. And the 'fact-checkers' ... And .. And ... &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "every edit seems to be scrutinized by Barsoomian and Erik"!? That's why the Watch function exists. This is part of Wikipedia. Anyone at all can "scrutinise" and contribute.  And actually, I did "leave it alone" for a few months, and when I did check back,  found that the same bogus Timur Bekmambetov story had come back and that  none of the editors who nurture the article had bothered to check if it was true. If you want an article to be taken seriously you have to have standards, and not just accept any rumour that makes the film seem more likely or more important. Barsoomian (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support redirect - There is not really that much coverage on this project. At least half of the coverage that we have is actually about Toho not wanting to make another Godzilla film for awhile. There is nothing that says this needs to be an "exception", because there is no guarantee that the film will be out any time soon.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 *  Do not support  - This should have gone to discussion first. As noted, there have been two FAILED AfDs. I've undone the redirect. Get a consensus. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As this page fails WP:NFF, I think you should give a reason why this should be exempt from policy, rather than just revert the page. If you actually look at the previous AfD, I can't see how the closing administrator came to the conclusion that consensus was keep, when at best it was no overall consensus, with possibly a lean towards delete.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is just a rehash of the proponents of the AfDs. As stated before, the project has general notability. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn my objection. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect; if anything sourceable is not already in the franchise article, add it there. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support redirect or deletion. Article can be recreated if the movie is ever made. Onthegogo (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is too much for the franchise page, which is 'summary style'. It would be 'recentism' is what I think it's called here at Wikipedia. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Superman in film (as one example only) to see how it is common practice for future films to sit happily on a franchise page. And Man of Steel (film) is far further through its development than this is.  Sheesh!  I can't even see how this can be considered controversial - WP:NFF is clear!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So is WP:GNG. There is a paragraph there on the franchise page. That's appropriate, with a link to this article. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But WP:GNG clearly doesn't apply here. What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as WP:NFF, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines?  The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With GNG, and considered not a film project -- note no standard sections or infobox -- that's how the article stands on its own. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that because the article is called Godzilla (2012 film project) and not Godzilla (2012 film), it should not follow the guidelines at WP:NFF? What nonsense!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much content? There's only one actual fact about the production: Gareth Edwards is attached as director. Nothing else is newsworthy. Barsoomian (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're on record as supporting the delete already. The franchise is a summary style article. The other sections summarize over ten films each. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're "on record" as opposing it. What's your point? Or is this relating to your instructing me to "let the article be"? Barsoomian (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was good enough for the Beatles to say. When there's a disagreement, 'let it be'. Agree to disagree, not keep fighting. Seems clear. You were pretty heated. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not tell me what articles I can work on or comment on again. And if you have any problems with my conduct, complain in an appropriate venue, do not cast aspersions on me to devalue my opinions. Barsoomian (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have -never- intended to offend you. I put that comment on your talk page. I did not bring it up anywhere else. I meant it in a good spirit. As in, let's not fight. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like "Keep away from my project" than "Let's not fight". Barsoomian (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support redirect, by the way, if anyone is counting. Fails WP:NFF. The film is not happening before 2014 at the earliest; the "attached" director is working on another film this year, and no one else has even been named. Barsoomian (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's typical to not have press releases every day. Your comment on 2014 only pertains to the title. That is speculation, whereas Legendary released a tentative date of 2012. I'd prefer Godzilla (reboot) or something non-dated as a title. At any rate, a news article or press release is the appropriate thing to quote on dates. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to manufacture facts, just to assess them. And there are very few, after this article has been here in one form or another for about a year. And I don't care what title this article has; but it's silly to pretend "2012" is justified. Barsoomian (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I'm tempted to change this back to a redirect already. Only one editor seems to think this article should be here, and has yet to give a good reason as to why it should be exempt from the guidelines at WP:NFF. I'll ask one more time - why should this article be the exception? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A few hours is not enough to determine consensus. An AfD, which is what this is by de facto, gives more time. Why are you the judge and jury? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! I said I was "tempted".  However, opinion seems almost unanimous.  And it's in clear contravention of WP:NFF. And you reverted from the redirect, but have yet to give a convincing argument as to why this article should be exempt from guidelines.  How about we revert to a redirect, copy the info back across to the franchise page and wait for some arguments in favour of this article?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important that the image appear too. Not just the text. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added this article to the WP:AN/I notice board. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect. The coverage is not exactly unusual. Compare Alien 5 for example (and there are many more). MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not keen on this discussion due to the recent AFD, but I support merging the content to the franchise article. The release year of 2014 appears to come from IMDb, though I am not sure why it was changed. There has been no apparent traction since Edwards was hired as director, and the article consists mainly of news reports with no topic of enduring notability—the film—at the heart of it at this point. Merging and redirecting is not deleting because no key content is lost; the topic is just not recognized as stand-alone right now. It's extremely common for such projects to be in development with no traction for some time after an initial announcement. The Akira remake, for example, has had spikes of development activity for the past decade or so. A redirect means that the page history so far is preserved, and if a film is produced, the history can be moved to the ultimate title, may it be "Godzilla (2014 film)" or whatever. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the history aspect. That is a good point. It has been only two months since the discussion. I felt like it did not have to be revisited so soon. It seems inappropriate to come up for debate so soon. But people have pointed out a lot of valid examples that I was unaware of, and did not come up at the AfD. Secondly, I feel like the redirect was sudden, and without process. I don't like sticking it in the franchise article, as I've said it's a summary of a lot of movies. There doesn't seem to be any better solution if it was to be kept and then in a month or two, 'attacked' again over NFF. Which it admittedly fails. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 18:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support redirect: With all due respect to all editors who display such passion for the subject matter - NFF does seem pretty clear in this case. (oops -- sig:) — Ched : ?  18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support redirect I voted for delete at the last AfD and I don't see that there has been any improvement to the article since then. It is, as others have noted, cobbled together from various reports without actually confirming that this "project" will ever see the light of day. Unless it's hurriedly filmed in someone's back yard I really can't see it being ready for release in 2012. There simply isn't time. WP:NFF certainly seems to apply here. In fact, this is an excellent example for NFF. As a sort of comparison, the sequel to Tomorrow, When the War Began will commence principal photography in my town in September 2011. Despite that movie being so much further along in the production process than this project is, The Dead of the Night (film) does not exist because NFF says that it shouldn't. The only references to the movie are at Tomorrow, When the War Began (film) and Tomorrow series. Given that movie is scheduled for a 2012 release date, we have a notability guideline that says this article shouldn't exist and there is no policy that actually supports its existence, this article should definitely be deleted, er, redirected. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe The Dead of the Night film project is just a bit less notable? Is it part of a franchise of 27 films, several television series, comic books, merchandise, several film studies and whatever else? Stretching over 50 years? Is its main character as iconic as Godzilla? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 21:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it at all. The movie, which actually has a cast, crew, script and all of the other things you expect a movie to have (unlike this one), appears to meet WP:GNG now but filming hasn't commenced. Therefore WP:NFF comes into play. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - given that alaney2k has withdrawn their objection, seems unanimous. Will redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support redirect WP:NFF seems pretty straightforward, and since no crucial content will be lost, this can always be undone later on if production of the film begins in earnest and more news is forthcoming. —Torchiest talkedits 20:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No news
There has been no news since the director was attached to this project last January. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)