Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla (2012 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Godzilla (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Movie currently in the planning stages, and even that is uncertain. Fails WP:NFF. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for films and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the movie is being made. Chelo61 (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a reliable source telling us that principal photography has indeed begun? --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (From wp:nff) The production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there's not enough decent, reliably sourced, noteworthy information to make a worthwhile article and it's just a magnet for fans to post the latest rumour they've heard.  raseaC talk to me 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and perhaps redirect for now to Godzilla (franchise). The article itself states that the rights were acquired by Legendary Pictures last March, and that preliminary concept art was released last July at Comicon. Nothing firmer has come forward. While this might eventually be a terrific article, it just ain't ready yet.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Week keep per new sources available showing more coverage of this project. BUT if kept, the title should be moved to Godzilla (2012 film project) and the film templates currently used in the article should then be removed... as until filming actually commences, it is a "non-film" but film-related project article. To avoid confusions in such cases, only film articles are to use film templates. When filming commences the templates can be brought back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's appropriate. I have no objection to that. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the movie project passes the general notability test. Google has over 84,000 hits for the words Godzilla AND reboot. Even if the movie is not made, this project has garnered lots of attention. I believe there is more information to be available this month from the various conventions. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet we don't know whether the movie will indeed be released in 2012. A few problems in pre-production, and the title might just be false. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly so, but I suggest that that's a minor point. I think the problem up to this time with the article has been the weak editing and lack of citations. It did not seem clear that the movie project was serious. I think with Legendary and Warners, it is serious. If the movie changes name, we change the article. Not a big deal. But Godzilla is generally notable. Like James Bond or Batman or Spider-man. Even if the movie fails to be made, the attempt will probably be notable. If we were to put the content into the Godzilla (franchise) article, it would still be notable. The odds are more than likely that the movie is going to be made. If the movie is not made, we can put the content into the franchise article then. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: It appears that some of the references used in the article as of this writing appeared in the media while this discussion was open and did not exist at the time of this nomination. These must be taken in consideration when closing this discussion. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, clearly enough reliable sources now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I actually tried adding more sources in an early edit and it was reverted. The film attempt is notable, particularly considering it is a franchise project and is based on an endearing icon. There's definitely a lot of interest in the project, even among non-fans, as the Google statistic above shows. And I will point out Godzilla 3D To The Max had it's own article for quite a while during production and it never reached filming either. --JohnVMaster (talk) 03:33, 9 September 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.