Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Lear (2009 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   redirect to King Lear. It's on the fence between redirect/keep and delete, so I'm choosing redirect as the less restrictive option.  Sandstein  19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

King Lear (2009 film)

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

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - there are significant sources for this film telegraph.co.uk and scotlandonsunday --T-rex 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Having sources is not enough - neither of those states that filming has begun. Projects get cancelled at the last minute all of the time; hence the reason for WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of NFF, but do not feel that it applies in this case --T-rex 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Actually yes, having sources IS enough. Just because filming hasn't begun doesn't mean the film won't happen. You say "films get canceled all the time", but as of now, this one hasn't been. Saying that it "might" get canceled is crystalballing The article has plenty of sources, plus is starring three very notable actors. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 01:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And given the way the film industry works, I would argue the opposite - that blind faith that this will be made is crystalballing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going on "blind faith", I'm going off of the sources that this article provides. According to the sources, the movie IS being made. According to you, it **might** not be. That's practically the definition of crystalballing. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the scotlandonsunday story as linked by T-rex above, "The director and producers of the movie, which is due to start filming in the spring, arrive in Scotland tomorrow [evidently August 11, since the story was put up on August 10] to examine potential locations."  Cliff smith  talk  04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rwiggum, I would advise you to read, very carefully, the full text of WP:NFF. It goes into detail about why this guideline exists, and why high-profile releases are not exempt from it. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be squarely within the WP:NFF guideline. I don't see a reason to make an exception for this one. AndyJones (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to King Lear. I was strongly leaning toward siding with Rwiggum on this one...until I read the WP:NFF guidelines.  Girolamo Savonarola is absolutely right; the guidelines explicitly say that "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", no matter how high-profile.  This film has not commenced principal photography; ergo, it should not have its own article until it does.  The film is mentioned under King Lear, and for now that's probably enough. --Smeazel (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per NFF, and the way it is written is almost trying to justify keeping it with caveats. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF. Cliff smith  talk  17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to King Lear for now - redirecting rather than deleting will make it easier to revive the article once sources satisfying WP:NFF are found. -Malkinann (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:N trumps WP:NFF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Struck vote. Will study and return.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not according to existing guidelines it doesn't. WP:NFF explicitly says that "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles....The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks."  WP:FUTFILM says that "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." (Boldfacing in both cases as in the original article.)  I don't see how it can get much clearer than that.  If you want to argue that this particular film is a special case for some reason, you can try to do so, but the guidelines seem very explicit that WP:NFF applies regardless of any other notability criteria of the film in question. --Smeazel (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to King Lear. Forget the film... the article itself has notability because of content and context per Cinematica, 5/20/08, ContactMusic.com 6/26/08, Javno.com 6/30/08... and each day something more.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with the redirection; that's certainly not forbidden by WP:FUTFILM, and in fact it's explicitly mentioned as an option, and this film is notable enough to warrant it. Amending my "delete" vote above to "redirect". --Smeazel (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF. JJL (talk) 00:52, 25 August 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.