Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carry On London


 * 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   merge to Carry On films. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Carry On London

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

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, and Pinkville. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when production on this long-delayed project is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.


 * Merge with Carry On films. Had the stop/start production of this film been notable (in the same way that Indiana Jones IV was notable) then maybe a separate article would be warranted.  So until the film is released, or until the production of the film becomes notable, merge would be the way to go. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered a merge, but to be honest, there's nothing useful to merge that isn't already that that article. Steve  T • C 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment There are a few bits and pieces that could be, although sources should be added for those, like Daniella Westbrook's original involvement. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge this is definitely notable enough for a section in the Carry On article and, like the films mentioned in the nomination, should be redirected to Carry On films, as people may still search for "Carry On London" to see if it's happening or not. If production gets the green light it will then be easier to recommence it with a pre-written infobox etc in the page history. Bob talk 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge With the current Carry On article. ("Oh infamy, infamy...") Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. As you say, there's not much, but it's worth a few minutes to save the small bits. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2008 (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.