Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Lantern (movie)


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Lantern (movie)

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

Reason the page should be deleted TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to expand Threat's rationale. This article was created prematurely because per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article should not begin until it is confirmed that principal photography has begun. This is because factors such as budgeting issues, casting issues, and scripting issues can all interfere with projects before they enter the production stage, even major projects (see Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV as two examples). Part of the content of this article was copied directly (and without the proper edit summary) from Green Lantern in other media. Filming is scheduled to start this September, but we cannot say for sure that it will take place and thus warrant added coverage about the production, reception, themes, et cetera, so this violates WP:NTEMP as well. In addition, the page is improperly named, so redirecting is not helpful in this case. — Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per my argument above. No problem with recreation if filming is verified to have begun. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —— Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF. For the record, content about the film can be found at Green Lantern in other media, while there is a sandbox for the eventual film at User:Wildroot/Green Lantern. Alientraveller (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF.TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: nominators are assumed to !vote for deletion unless otherwise stated (e.g. a procedural nomination). Steve  T • C 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the content appears to be info on the comic and rumors.--Iner22 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. The reasons are very good, practical ones, as many issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Lots are announced and then fail to materialise, so directed use of the guideline is the best way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln). And many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (e.g. Pinkville and Justice League). Projects unrelated to the strikes, but which are still in development hell, include the aforementioned Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; indeed, it was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. Green Lantern itself has gone through multiple incarnations, with several directors attached, during its protracted development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, the best place for the Green Lantern film adaptation information is in the wider context of the parent article, where it will best serve the general reader. Steve  T • C 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per convention. If this movie does enter production, a far better article, based on verifable referenced instead of speculation.--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to delete an article concerning the Green Lantern film since it is indeed going to transpire dispite the fact that shooting hasen't occur yet. Homey104 (User talk:Homey104) 6:25, 22 April 2009


 * We can never be sure that a project will take place. Other superhero films have faltered.  Batman was absent from the screen for seven years, during which there were several attempts that failed before Nolan came on board.  Superman was absent even longer, with similar failed attempts.  An attempt to adapt Wonder Woman failed.  Captain America first began development in 1997, but we have not seen a film since.  A film adaptation of the Justice League of America also faltered.  Green Lantern's film itself has been in development for a couple of years already.  So I disagree that "it is indeed going to transpire". — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFF which has been based on a lot of experience with future films stalling. I see no good reason for an exception for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The movie is confirmed to be filming in Australia starting in November as recently reported on IGN and other notable news sources. Pre-production begins in July. I don't see why we would delete an article only to recreate it in a few months.--Cartman005 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Steve's comment and mine as well. We can never treat such projects, even high-profile ones, as certain productions.  People tend to have short-term memories in following these kinds of films and do not realize how long it takes, if ever, for some films to be made.  That's why the term "development hell" is prominent in the film industry.  A lot goes into preparing to make a film, and like it has been said, there are often factors along the way that bring it to a halt.  So there is the possibility that production will take place, but creating a stand-alone film article gives the false impression that the film is absolutely coming forth.  Relegating details prior to possible production to the section of a broader article shows that things are still progressing but not certain enough for an actual film to result.  Films can stop in the middle of production, but such halts are usually notable enough for it to be considered an unfinished film.  In contrast, films that never start filming can't really be considered unfinished if they never started. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:34, 24 April 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.