Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (3rd 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1906 (film)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has been deleted at AfD twice before as failing WP:CRYSTAL. The article still fails WP:NFF as there is no reliable source evidence that principal filming has begun. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is fairly well-sourced, and at this point, the troubled production history of the film makes it notable even if principal photography has not begun. The article does need cleanup, however, as Jim Hill is a notoriously unreliable source for film production information. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or perhaps merge to Brad Bird. On the one hand this is a project in pre-production that does not (yet) meet WP:NFF.  On the other there are enough sources to support an article on the production even if the film never actually gets made.  In such cases there is usually a better merge target but the book is redlinked and the notability of the project is mainly due to Bird's involvement so he is probably the best choice if a merge is desired.  In either case there is no pressing need to delete the history.  Eluchil404 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm obviously biased because I wrote the article last time, but I'd been hoping that proof of initial photography, or at least preproduction, would pop up soon after reposting. So far no luck. Eluchil404's idea of merging to Brad Bird's page might be a good option, at least if the movie seems to be permanently on hiatus. I wouldn't like to delete the topic completely though. It's a massive potential project, with a chance it's still in the works. Sloggerbum (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.'' 02:30, 30 August 2010 (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.