Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burt Wonderstone


 * 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-- Ankit Maity   Talk •  contribs 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Burt Wonderstone

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFF, the development section is a case in point of why this policy exists. pushed back several times. Preproduction. WP:TOOSOON. Obviously will meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM once completed. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It starts filming in January and unlike at other stages of its development has a signed cast including some who are out in Vegas researching their roles. It has been given plenty of coverage by places like Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety and presumably others I don't check often as well as smaller outlets like Collider and Cinemablend. If it hasn't started filming by February feel free to give me a call otherwise this article has suitable sourcing and coverage and is not harming Wikipedia by its inclusion. Wasting time on matters like this may be why Wikipedia is losing editors. That said, I am happy you were able to use the researched and sourced development section to come up with a reason why the article 'fails' to have enough coverage to be notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the linked policy "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. " Which this movie itself has proved multiple times. If you don't like the policy, petition to change it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a policy set in stone, like most things on Wikipedia. If you came to me with the Saw 8 article I had deleted a few days ago you might have a case, as it is this is a petty action to invoke these policies against the film when it clearly has resources and coverage, an assigned budget, a signed cast, a planned filming date and production officials in Vegas scouting shooting locations. If you can't create a film article before Principal Photography begins then many of the earliest sources will simply be lost in time, like tears...in rain. There are actual articles you might have a case against and instead you're wasting both yours and my time with this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't really have a film article until there is a film to have an article about, which doesn't exist until the cameras start rolling so maybe these articles are best developed in user space until filming begins. I notice this article was created back in June, which was clearly premature and should never have been created back then and should have been deleted straight away.  I take the nominator's point that it has already been pushed back several times.  That said, providing this film DOES go into production in January, there's not a lot of point in deleting at this stage.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep a well sourced article about a film that is in pre-production, entering filming in a matter of weeks. Now, WP:NFF is a guideline, not a policy and i do follow it, but i only follow it to the point where an announced film has no cast, director or any news other than a possible script coming through. Those are the articles that fail WP:NFF. Since there's a script for this, a set filming date AND actor research, this for me is a keeper. RAP (talk) 20:53 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Logan Talk Contributions 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep or userfy, but only as there doesn't seem to be anywhere else sensible to house the article. Definitely fails WP:NFF, and probably fails WP:GNG, and as such, should never have been created back in June, and should have been deleted months ago. WP:N states "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage"  and it's borderline as to whether this article is much more than a news article.  Under normal circumstances, I'd support a merge and redirect, but as I stated, there doesn't seem to be anywhere else (director, source material, etc) to put it and given its supposed imminent filming date, it's not sensible to delete.  I'd suggest we keep an eye on it, and revisit in a couple of weeks to see whether filming actually does begin in January, or whether it get pushed back yet again.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out to me that the article incubator is a sensible place to put this article until it actually enters production, and this makes sense to me. Given the history of production being continually pushed back, and given that they are still casting the movie(!), I'd have reservations as to whether production will actually enter production as soon as some editors expect.  Therefore, let's incubate until cameras start rolling.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Casting Brat Garrett in a minor role means it will not be able to get started in January? They cast main stars a week before filming starts in some cases. Seriously, it has a 6 week period here where it can start filming, it is sourced and provides significant coverage of all available information, it is better sourced than a lot of released film articles, they are scouting locations, actors are researching roles, they've moved on to fill out minor parts which wouldn't even necessarily be filmed until the end of the production, they have a clear, relatively low budget. This film is happening. If it hasn't started filming by the end of January this argument may have held water but as it is, it is a really petty act against a decent article when there are bigger problems on this site to deal with. The most ignorant thing of all is putting it up for deletion, not a merge or anything but deletion (not that a merge is acceptable in this case either). Seriously, six f'in weeks, mostly six because they're probably not wanting to film through Christmas. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of supposition in your argument there. We have no idea whether they will start filming in January.  Much the same argument was used at the recent afd for Paradise Lost, also due to start filming in January, and yet, yesterday it was announced the film would be put on hold.  Given that this film has been in development for 5 years already, there's no guarantee it won't get put back again.   Interestingly, the article was created way back in June - why was that if filming isn't supposedly due to start until January?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Paradise Lost was pushed back because the budget had spiraled out of control, and from this article at Deadline "but it is always a shock when a large film has its start date scratched so close to production, even if it is temporary," and this is a large film which gained a lot of coverage with the casting of Jim Carrey in a return to his older comedy films. Considering that the Brad Garrett casting on December 12, 2011 features the line "The movie is scheduled to go before cameras in January" again, I would say the article deserves the benefit of the doubt. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It just goes to show these things can happen. It doesn't matter how big a production it is, it can still fail. I think WP:NFF says something along those lines.  If you wish to continue the Paradise Lost parallel - Bradley Cooper was interviewed about it on 6th December, just a week before it was put on hold. I'm still interested as to why this article was created as far back as June. What would have been the justification to keep back then I wonder?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I missed that it was only moved from userspace in October. I'll stop banging on about June.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper is an actor and will have a different level of involvement in the day to day of production than the casting department who will be answering directly to producers and directors. The idea was initially pushed back to rewrite the script for Carrey's involvement, making his character much older than it was intended. Other than that, there are no hints of any reason that this production would be pushed back at this moment in time and I reiterate, there is no gain in deleting, merging, or incubating this article for 2-6 weeks, it is not a problem article, it is not written as an advertisement or 'news article' and again it is well sourced. The only argument here seems to be "well something COULD happen". Well a meteor COULD hit the Earth before The Dark Knight Rises is released in cinemas, should we incubate that until July just in case? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course not. The Dark Knight Rises has been discussed at length in the media, has started filming and has had trailers released, and therefore passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG.  This article does not.  It is really just a list of casting decisions, and therefore pretty much just repeating news, going against guideline at WP:N.  The question is more whether you should write an article about the aforementioned meteor before it hits the earth!  Now, don't get me wrong, I deliberated my response here carefully, and almost reluctantly favoured against it, but let's face it, there has been a spate of these premature articles, and this isn't really notable yet.  There is a lot of supposition in your arguments as to what has been going on behind the scenes, regarding casting, scouting locations, rewrites etc. This isn't firm information, and don't forget, to be notable, it needs to have been discussed objectively (again WP:N). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not just a list of casting decisions, it has the exact same content as any other film article: a lead, an infobox, a premise, a cast list and a development history. In these ways it is further along than a lot of released film articles. You are relying on something going wildly wrong in a short span of time to throw the entire film into disarray which while possible is incredibly unlikely. Not every film has something go wrong with it and not in a short span of time. NFF and GNG are guidelines to help article management, not outright laws and repeatedly citing them doesn't undo the fact that the article is not a stub, it is sourced, detailed, it is not an advert, not a news article, NOT a list of casting decisions, scheduled for filming imminently and has been addressed across multiple film following outlets and news outlets such as the Las Vegas Journal. If this starts filming in January and this article is deleted beforehand I am going to flip the hell out. And it has not been repeatedly pushed back for filming, it was given a filming date of October, it was pushed back to January. The script having been in limbo a long time doesn't mean this will get repeatedly pushed back, there is no history of it being pushed back for filming repeatedly. In a short span of time, from June or July it gained a director (Carrell had been attached for a long time), had rewrites for Carrey, gained Carrey, gained Buscemi, gained Wilde and had one pushed back filming date. It is not a trouble production. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you read WP:N you will see that it says: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." To my mind, this describes this and similar premature film articles exactly.  And they shouldn't really have infoboxes just yet, as a lot of the information is speculative.  Have a look at WP:MOSFP.  And what with what just happened with Paradise Lost it is clear to see where WP:NFF is coming from.  Everyone seems a little dismissive of these guidelines, but they are established guidelines, and have been drawn up by experienced editors for a reason.  However, I agree, deleting the article now might be a little extreme, but if it happens, it happens - no need to "flip the hell out"(!)  But for the meantime, let's keep a close eye on it and if not leave it where it is, then incubate it, and if the production is delayed further, then I trust you will support a delete.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between Paradise Lost and Burt Wonderstone is that Paradise is intended to be a big-budget epic, while this is a comedy that only costs the same amount as any other comedy. Not exactly something New Line Cinema would dash to place on hold. RAP (talk) 16:37 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That and the Paradise Lost article (now I've looked at it) is little more than a stub, a basic cast list, bare links and grammatically incorrect sentences, of what few there are. Burt is well developed for available information. I also didn't create it too soon intentionally, it was moved in October for when I had exxpected filming to begin. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's not relevant here, as we're discussing notability, and not what films are more likely to get made than others or which articles are better written. As it stands, due to it failing all the notability guidelines, this article is not notable.  That said, I am not advocating deletion in this case.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree, I think it is notable and the coverage compliments that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline and none of it relies on a press release, sports coverage, tabloid journalism or a public announcement. It's websites doing actual reporting on film industry activities. It is not routine, that the casting for the film is covered on the main pages of these sites elevates it above routine, it is specifically being singled out as worthy of mention. The individual casting of every film is not covered. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not going to rehash all the exhaustive arguments above, but I am never a fan of deleting articles that we know we are going to recreate later anyhow - making work for no good purpose that we don't even get paid for. If for some reason it all catastrophically fails, then it can be renominated. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence my proposal to incubate until it reached notability. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2011 (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.