Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnomeo and Juliet


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gnomeo and Juliet
The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No different than many other future film articles. Qutezuce 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment. About "it seems as if it were written by a studio executive", just summarize the reactions from the people involved instead of quoting them in full, and the problem is solved.  Other than those quotes, I don't see anything objectionable with the article.  As Qutezuce said, it is just an article about a future film (one that's been talked about in the press quite a bit) like any other.  This one's pretty high-profile, so while of course it could get cancelled (ANY future film could), there are plenty of sources verifying its existence.  I think it would be more usefull for Wikipedia to have an article about it than to not ackowledge its existence because there's a slight chance that it won't be released (a chance which is always there with any future film).  See: Wikipedia is not paper.  Unless you're advocating that ALL future film articles on Wikipedia be deleted, I don't see any reason to single this one out.  If you ARE advocating that, this is not the place to do it.  Esn 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: One more thing, the article needs more references or external links than just one from IMDB which requires an IMDBPro membership. I'll see what I can do (but please help if you know a good article about the film). Esn 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC
 * If it "has been talked about in the press quite a bit" then those press references should be cited in the article. If mainstream news sources are cited to show that the preparations for this film are already notable in 2006 I'll consider changing my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added some more references & links. Here's a Rotten Tomatoes page that lists the cast: .  Also, here's a page with news from the project going back to early 2004:  Esn 04:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This nomination was incomplete. listing now. - Liberatore(T) 13:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but add more references. RedRollerskate 13:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, feel free to do so. - Liberatore(T) 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a notable future film. Englishrose 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If references can be added to prove its existence, the presence of people like Kate Winslet, Elton John and Tim Rice makes it notable enough. Seb Patrick 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No different than many other future film articles. Fan1967 14:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree with Qutezuce, no different from any other article about an unreleased film.  Tychocat 15:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No different from any other article about an unreleased film. No references except an external link to imdb, which does not have a listing for the film yet. This "reference" contains no information at all; it is a teaser for their pay site, which may have something about the project. Nothing has been presented to show that the preparations for this film are notable outside of the circle of film industry professionals who are willing to pay for a subscription to imdb pro. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Note that verifying its existence is insufficient: we must be able to verify all the claims in the article. The "reference", as Dpbsmith notes, does not permit us to verify anything whatsoever. Even with erification, this is one huge crystal ball. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, this is a prediction, not a fact. Apparently I've missed out on some debate on what 'encyclopedic' means.  Aaaah! Category:2011_films.  Arrgh!  Category:Future_events.  Pluhleeze!   Shenme 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The IMDB link seems to speak to its veracity, although it would be nicer if I had IMDB pro... Irongargoyle 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you actually look at what's available when you click on the IMDB link? Fan1967 18:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I really wish that people would read WP:NOT about crystal ballism before making AfD notifications.  Plenty of Canadian press, UPI, Sydney Morning Herald.  It's verifiable, it appears to be happening, so keep it, damn it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would use that Toronto Sun article as a reason not to consider this film reliable. Elton John and his partner are going to create a studio to produce this movie. Not only does the movie not exist yet, the studio that's supposed to make it doesn't even exist yet. Fan1967 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, I think that the fact that Elton's going out of his way to create a production company is yet another fact to add to the article, further cementing its need. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, I think that would have a lot more value after the company exists. Fan1967 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, the movie is indeed verifiable. --Coredesat 00:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless production has already begun or is definitely going to start soon. Films get cancelled all the time, and this one has been stuck in development for years. WP:NOT a crystal ball (or IMDb, thank God). Extraordinary Machine 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the crystal ball part over again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The film isn't "almost certain" to take place; like I said, films get cancelled all the time and this one has been in development (with Elton John) for over two years at least (see ). Those articles don't list any production dates (not that they wouldn't be subject to change either). Extraordinary Machine 11:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the very next sentence: "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." I'd say that speculation about this film is pretty well-documented. Esn 12:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Is the event notable?  Yes, it will involve Elton John and Kate Winslet.  Is the event almost certain to take place?  It sure seems like it, judging by what we get from the next sentence you didn't paste. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You say it will involve Elton John and Kate Winslet. Very well, then: you are saying that when the movie is released it will be notable. That does not mean their talk about plans for the movie is notable now. Not everything that notable people do is automatically notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm just working out of the WP:NOT parameters. If you don't believe verified future events can be notable, then you might have to take it up over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the movie is going to happen, and if you delete, the article will just be recreated. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If and when the company actually exists, and production ever actually begins, an article may be appropriate. Too many things up in the air right now. What's the financing plan for the company? Who's going to run it? When is it going to start up? Until those things happen, too many things can fall apart. Fan1967 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None of those questions, however, are relevant to the proper policies/guidelines surrounding future event articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They are absolutely relevant. Until those things are answered, none of this planned production can even be remotely regarded as "almost certain". Fan1967 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where, in the relevant policy/guidelines, that these questions become relevant, considering the fact that there's plenty of sourcing already about this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of sourcing about people talking about planning a movie. That's a very different thing from sourcing about people actually making a movie. This kind of talk happens all the time in Hollywood for movies that never actually get made. Fan1967 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So there is no relevant policy or guideline that brings relevance to your questions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the event almost certain to take place? Fan1967 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like it, given the sources we have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can believe that. When the company actually exists, and production is actually scheduled, you might say that. Until then, it's a plan, and those fall apart in Hollywood allthe time. Fan1967 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if plans do occasionally fall apart, that's not for us to say. From the looks of the evidence we have, this will be happening.  I'm sorry you disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a movie is not an event, it is a movie, so that section does not apply. This article is not about the date of the release of the movie, or the premiere party -- it is about the movie itself. And the movie currently exists, it does not exist as a series of 80000+ individual frames with accompanying audio, but it exists in the press, it exists in a early pre-production stage. Whether or not it actually comes out is a not relevent. If you want to argue that this be deleted you should be arguing that this film in its current state does not warrant inclusion because it is not notable enough. My counter-argument to that is that future films are acceptable fodder for articles (the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section specifically mentions articles about future films when it says that those articles must be careful not to be advertising, hence it makes them acceptable articles as long as they are written in an NPOV manner), and this film in particular has merited mention in the press. Qutezuce 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Qutezuce just said. Even IF the film doesn't come out, it's been talked about in the press enough to warrant an article.  There are films which have never been released that have articles about them (see: Category:Unfinished films).  If it is never released, the article could be changed to say that very fact in the opening line; that it was an animation project for which Elton John was to do the soundtrack that was never released.  Wikipedia is not paper, so I see nothing wrong with having an article on an unreleased film. Esn 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Dbpsmith and Fan-1967. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:53, 16 June 2006 (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.