Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira (live action 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   redirect to  Akira (film). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Akira (live action film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: shooting hasn't started. Cliff smith  talk  08:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. May fail WP:NFF, but meets the general notability guideline which overrides it.  The discussions about whether this film is going to be made are notable in themselves. JulesH (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Akira (film), which is where this entire article is cut & pasted from. Fails WP:NFF, and I'm rather dubious of the above claim that it meets WP:N; in fact little if anything appears to have changed with regards to this film since it was last discussed at AfD back in February 2008. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't meet WP:N? Come on... there are 3 reliable sources used as references in the article.  IGN has a total of 8 articles about it, all but one published since the AFD you mention, which is a clear change that invalidates the previous result.  Additional sources are two-a-penny: .  And that's just a selection of what turned up on the first 5 pages of a google search.  Google news would undoubtedly turn up a different set, and different keywords are likely to turn up still more.  There can be no doubt that this film is notable, whether it actually gets finished or not. JulesH (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked all of those links, but there's at least one blog in there. Notable or not, WP:NFF exists for a reason. Anything you could write about this film, sourced or not, would be largely speculative. Now is not the time for a stand alone article, and for now it can be adequately covered at Akira (film). PC78 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The only site that's obviously a blog is a blog of a journalist at Wired, and is therefore a reliable source. As to why WP:NFF exists, I'm not sure that it applies in the case of a film that is so clearly notable as this one. It is logical to avoid reporting the "Tom Cruise's next project is..." type of stuff that often ends up in the media, but the reaction that the production of this film has produced is of an entirely different kind.  I see no reason not to write an article that covers the speculation about it.  Such speculation would be sourced, and would seem to meet the requirements of both WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JulesH (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect in agreement with PC78 and also with respects in partial agreement with the WP:N found by JulesH. Talk about the film may meet WP:GNG, but until it begins production, it does not merit per WP:NFFa seperate article... and a redirect will send readers to where they can learn about the rumoured/planned/proposed film in context with its inspiration. When it does begin production, and information is then available about cast/crew/production/storyline, then by all means give it its own well-sourced article. Basically... the seperate article is just a tad too soon.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back and redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. I agree with his idea. While a production can be notable enough for inclusion somewhere, writing a separate article is a tad too soon. - Mgm|(talk) 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. MichaelQSchmidt is right I think.  WP:NFF is best understood as a style guideline in so far as it reccomends that even notable projects be merged before principle photography begins.  This is to prevent Wikipedia becoming cluttered with perma-stubs about projects that generated buzz and then fell through, not to prevent coverage of actually notable projects which almost always (as in this case) have a logical parent article to put info on the production until it needs to be spun off.  Of course, including what is really style guidance in a notability guideline is potentially confusing, but I still think it's the best place for it, all things considered.  In any event, in cases such as this where WP:V and arguable WP:N are met, no deletion is necessary even if WP:NOTFILM calls for a merge and redirect.  Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: as you mention, the intention of NFF is not to suppress information, but to define the appropriateness of separate articles - this makes it no different from any other notability guideline, including the GNG. It is firmly a notability guideline, though, not a style one. No one doubts that many of the NFF cases met WP:V and WP:RS, but those are content standards. Had this project failed either of those, NFF would have been raised in this AfD, but only after those primary concerns. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:NFF addresses a structural issue with film articles. When articles are created about planned films like this one, there is always the tone that the film will be made.  There is usually coverage about the baby steps a film takes toward production, but when coverage stops for some time, it cannot be concluded whether or not the project is truly done for.  So how is the existing coverage to be treated?  These are guidelines for a specific scope (cinema) for which we know that the film industry will often start up many possible projects but only go through with a fraction of them, an issue not really found in other scopes. I think that the guidelines encompass both style and notability... there is no mutual exclusivity. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was going to say redirect, but where should we do so? Either Akira (manga) or Akira (film).  The planned film is a remake of the 1988 film, yet the source material is grounded in the manga. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Akira (film). I'm satisfied that this has enough ties to the 1988 film to warrant the location, and after the last time this was created (at Akira (2009 film)), the information was comfortably incorporated there without controversy. Suggest a link is included to Akira (film) from Akira (manga) should the redirect be enacted. Steve  T • C 00:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Akira (film) per Steve and make sure Akira (manga) links to the section. — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:46, 21 January 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.