Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse


 * 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is about a planned film based on a faux trailer -- see /FILM coverage. Filming has not begun, as seen by the "in-development" status at IMDb, so article does not yet warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. No prejudice against recreation if filming does begin, which is not a guarantee in the film industry. Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure. If you apply the letter of WP:NFF, then this film is not planned to go into production until next year . But the faux trailer could perhaps (from what I've seen online) claim notability of its own, which might make this a special case. PC78 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be an article about the trailer, then there could be a brief mention of the planned film there. In this case, though this is an article specifically about the film.  I'm not sure if it is within compliance to radically change the contents of the article to talk about a different topic. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as article about the trailer, as there are more sources confirming its existence than IMDB. aside from the referenced article at Joblo.com, there are articles in Variety, Screening Log, Digital Spy, Empire Movies, Snarkerati.com, EW.com, AintItCool.com and many, many others... as well as the one at The Hollywood Reporter confirming that the above-mentioned trailer is being turned into a feature film by Mandate. For my money, this meets or exceeds the criteria at WP:NFF completely for the trailer. Let's prod it for expansion and improvement instead. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you supporting it as a film article or a trailer article, though? It doesn't meet WP:NFF because filming has not begun.  There's been films that are anticipated to have begun, but they can be held off, like Nottingham.  If we can treat this as a trailer article, fine, but it can't be a stand-alone film article if there is no guarantee that there will be a film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed (see above). Strong support as article about the trailer with inclusion above 'rumors' of the trailer being considered for a feature film. Always the oportunity later to create an article about the film. Great compromise. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Had to change my vote (above) for this particular article, as it fails under NFF. However, I have created an article about the trailer itself HERE, expanding on the article about the potential film, and if/when the film is produced, we can easily link back. Nothing is lost and Wiki is improved. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With some terrific input from Erik, I created an article HERE about the "pre-trailer". I think i did a nice job, finding facts in about the trailer's history and the projected future film. I invite comments and suggestions. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Great job with the new article, but I don't see why it couldn't have been created on top of the present one. I think Erik was being a bit over-cautious above; I don't see anything wrong with changing the subject of an article where it is warranted, and it's not like this is really a different subject anyway, or like the old article had a lot of content to replace. In addition, if this article was to be deleted, then the new article would have to be moved here, as there would be no need to disambiguate with "(trailer)". Personally I would cut, paste & redirect the new article here, and assuming Erik is happy this AfD can then be withdrawn. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't really recall the specifics, but I think that page histories need to be kept organized. I've often requested db-histmerge for two articles with the same content, so I assume that the opposite is true in keeping page histories for not-quite-related topics separate.  I hesitate to assume the likelihood of a film being made, considering the usual possible circumstances (especially with Apatow's crew having a lot of ideas in the making) and the possible 2008 Screen Actors Guild strike.    If the film is made, I think it would be fair to say that the trailer information would be merged into it.  I guess it seems problematic to have a film article → trailer article rather than vice versa. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about page histories myself. I think they are merged in the event of cut & paste moves, but kept seperate where articles have evolved on their own. I don't think it applies here though, because this would be a straightforward merge. PC78 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't the merge then require a name change, as we have essentially two different (though related) subjects? One, we have an article about a trailer. Two, we have an article about a possible film that conflicts NFF and CRYSTAL. I was able to source a fairly comprehensive article about the trailer.. and glad to do so. But everything I was able to find about the proposed feature film was rumor and supposition. In order to pave the way for a (future) article about the (possible) film, I made sure to include the industry buzz about the hopes for the future. If the film is never made, the trailer article still has merit. If the film is made, a merge or redirect would be easy to set up. If the article in AfD is deleted without prejudice, it would be welcome back at such (future) time as there is more than rumor about its production. (And PS: I do not know the procedures for writing over an article that has been placed in AfD, so I took the easier path and created the new one.) Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the old or overwrite with the new... whatever is easiest. I was glad to do my part. This AfD aside, I feel grateful that you both gave such positive input to the work it inspired me to contribute. Thanks. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - much ado about what is (at the moment) nothing significant in its current state. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The article in question at this AfD does not belong as it fails NFF big time. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:08, 31 July 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.