Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Misérables (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. Michig (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Les Misérables (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject fails WP:NFF which says. "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". This film has not even completed assembling a cast, let alone started production. In the event that this film does get off the ground, the release date is at least a year away. AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there are a lot of big names attached to this film and it has a release date. In addition this page contains a lot of useful information. JDDJS (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Pretty much the same reasons as above, including it has numerous references and citations to support the information. Evilgidgit (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough sourcing to warrant an article. Now, should the film be shelved, i suggest automatic redirection. It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming. RAP (talk) 2:46 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to the above, WP:NFF further says "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—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." That the article may contain "a lot of useful information" is not justification, under any policy or guideline, for retention. A lot of deleted articles contained useful information but they were still deleted. A scheduled release date a year away is not a guarantee that the date will not be pushed back as has happened so many times. "It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming" completely ignores WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but deleting an article because it's not notable yet is a no-no. RAP (talk) 14:54 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when? Articles about non-notable subjects are deleted all the time. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a blantant waste of time. For the creator of the article whose research is flushed down the toilet, and waste of time to other editors when they need to recreate the article when they can just take the redirect and undo it and work from there. RAP (talk) 17:53 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a "waste of time" is never a reason to retain an article. If it was, there'd be no reason for AfD because we'd never delete an article. In any case, redirection as suggested by Nymf doesn't delete the content so the "waste of time" argument doesn't apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any "research" needn't be "flushed down the toilet". It could be incubated, moved to userspace, or, if redirected, held elsewhere (and preserved in version history). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What we're doing here is trying to ascertain whether this subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Deleting an article because it's not notable is not a "no-no", in fact completely the opposite.  ALL articles that are not notable should not be here on Wikipedia!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:NFF. Nymf hideliho! 07:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One Keep More. NFF is a guideline, not a policy, and we should remember that it is not a hard and fast rule as a result. There is always the occassional exception, and I think this qualifies as one of them. There is more than enough coverage from independant third-party sources in this article for it to meet the requirements of WP:N, the overarching policy that supercedes the numerous project-specific guidelines. At the end of the day, NFF is there to stop the creation of articles on films that nobody has ever heard of and have never been discussed in reliable sources, or on films that have simply been announced as in creation with few (if any) other details announced for months - if not years - to come. This film is none of that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not an "overarching policy", or a policy at all; it too is a guideline and it is a general guideline. The specific guideline that affects this movie is WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF is to stop the creation of premature articles for films which may or may not get made. It is very specific when it states that any film can face obstacles, no matter how big or small, and is here to prevent creation of articles like this one, not just "films that nobody has ever heard of".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even WP:NFF grants that even the topic of a failed film project could be found notable through application of guideline. Being "not-yet-a-film" is not the determining factor here. Being "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" and having persistant and in-depth comentary and analysis over a many-years period is of greater import. NFF seeks to address non-notable film topics and would have greater bearing had this been some unknown or little-covered topic.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But, if this film is not made, then the failure would not be sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that assertion is untrue, as the determining factor for notability, even for a failed project, would be if the topic had/has enough coverge in reliable sources and over an extended period of time to be seen as worthy of note. If this topic somehow did not have such coverage, it would be understandably non-notable even after a speculated failure to be completed. But as the topic already has the multiple high-level coverage over an extended period of time, we have a teasonable arguement toward notability now... and even were it to be announced as permanently shelved tomorow... but we do not even have a hint of such happening.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:N > WP:NFF.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline? Project specific guidelines are created to cater for situations that aren't addressed by the general guideline. This is just such a case and NFF is clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline?" - You've answered your own question. NFF states "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", with the last two words linking back to WP:N.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The section of NFF that you've quoted refers to "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video)", which doesn't apply to this article because the movie hasn't even finished casting, let alone commenced filming. NFF summarised says that films should not have their own articles until they are released unless they've started filming and the production is notable. We have to apply both NFF and WP:N here. When we do, it's clear this movie shouldn't have an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, WP:FUTFILM makes for interesting reading. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Planned films is interesting as well, and perhaps more cogent.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but what we should be looking at here is whether this film demonstrates an exception to the notability guideline. In my view, it does not.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, and I am quite willing to opine a delete for anticiapted films if coverage, commentary, analysis, and sourcing is limited or lacking... and it is my own determination per policy and guideline is that this one has the extended and persistant coverage over a many-years period to merit being one of those exceptions, much as The Hobbit (film project) did. It is through such discussions as this that reasonable exceptions are determined.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting the policy and guideline. The SNG WP:NF (and its sub-section NFF) is, like all guidelines, headed by "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (see WP:FFEXCEPTIONS). While application of NFF is always being debated when we see an obvious meeting of WP:GNG for a film that is close to principle filming, we may also consider that discussion of the topic of a film's production tis allowed through policy to be discussed if properly sourced... and that WP:N itself states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline" and "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice". It is through discussions such as these that reasonable and common sense exceptions are considered, and we do not blindly adhere to NFF if doing so prevents improving the encyclopedia. Just as User:AussieLegend observes above, NFF is not a policy. So we may treat an anticipated event per policy and guideline and ask ourselves if the topic under discussion has the in-depth and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period of time so as to be determinable as "worthy of note"? See WP:Planned films. And while per policy we might consider a merge and reirection to either Tom Hooper (director) or Les Misérables (musical), we have so much sourced information that doing so would overbuden the possible targets. Hence, an exception to NFF is also a reasonable consideration.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it really overburden anything else? At the moment, it reads like a list of press releases, which could be tightened to a single paragraph.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect until production actually starts per WP:NFF. As it's just a list of press releases, it fails WP:N which states that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage".  As this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years.  If Wikipedia had been around in 1990, people then would have been saying "look - it has a director and a cast and everything - this film will be made."   --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this film gets shelved then you can immediately redirect it. But that is very unlikely. In the mean time there is a lot of important information that is properly sourced that is in the article that should be kept. JDDJS (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And even in guessing it gets shelved, NFF specifically grants that a production can be found notable per the guidelines even if the film is never made or made and never distributed. Above your comment, User:Robsinden observes "this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years".  This conjectural statement seems to walk hand-in-hand with guideline acknowledging that persistent and indepth analysis and comentary about a topic over a many years period shows that topic as being worthy of notice per our guidelines... notability being determined through the sourcable and verifiable coverage OF the topic over a many-years period. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is no "persistent and indepth analysis", just a list of casting announcements! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A list? What I am reading is sourced prose offering sourced discussion about the prospects for success or failure of this future project and whether some development will occur.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This argument is arse-about-face. It should be redirected until it becomes a film, or becomes notable enough in its own right.  To say that it should only be redirected if it is not made admits that it wouldn't be notable if it isn't made - therefore it isn't notable now.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion then of policy specifically allowing we may have an article on an anticipated event if "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"? Is it that you are asserting that the topic does somehow not have  sufficiently wide interest and coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time? Or is it that you're asserting that the topic demonstrated as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note There was a similar discussion about The Avengers (2012 film). That ended in no consensus. Interestingly, less than a month after the AFD closed, there was a DYK about it. I know about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and everything, but I think that it is worth a mention that another film became a DYK before filming started. JDDJS (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A more cogent comparison might be the articles The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again... spun out of the years-older The Hobbit (film project) itself created because persisitant on ongoing commentary and analysis of the topic over many years allowed the welcome existance of an article on a "future" event of "sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument works for The Hobbit because there was significant coverage. There is no significant coverage here.  "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage".  There is no critical analysis here, just a list of casting reports.  If we're referring to this article, a good comparison is with what happened with Paradise Lost - it survived an AfD, then was put on hold a couple of days later, so was redirected.  This demonstrates that the article wasn't sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article.  Neither is this one.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough sources are warranted for the article to be kept. I also agree with the concerns by Michael Q. Schmidt; it meets both WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Plenty of references that demonstrate notability to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No - there is no significant coverage - see above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. The article is meeting WP:SIGCOV; I see plenty of references from such sources as BBC, The Sun, and EW, and these are not trivial mentions. That means there is significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not there may be significant coverage, the existence of this article ignores WP:FUTFILM and WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NF and the sub-guidelines you have mentioned assist in determining notability when significant coverage is lacking. In this case, significant coverage has been proven earlier (see my above comment). This sentence is taken directly from the general notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to actually read WP:NFF, especially WP:NFF, which references WP:GNG. It goes to the trouble of saying "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article". WP:GNG is the basis of determining notability, but NFF and WP:FUTFILM specifically address whether or not film-related articles should exist, even if the topic meets the basic requirements of GNG. WP:FUTFILM specifically states "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." Following that requirement, this article should not exist. You can't just cherry-pick which guideline you want to follow, you need to look at the applicability of all of them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read the guidelines! Never assume. Also, the sentence extracted from WP:NFF you provided is inaccurate, it in fact says Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article BASED ON CONSENSUS. Consensus is that keeping, not deleting, is required here. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The important part is the part I quoted, "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article", but you are correct, it does also say "based on consensus." Even though there is significant coverage, which is what you based your keep vote on, significant coverage alone doesn't guarantee that an article should exist. There needs to be more than simply compliance with GNG, at lest for film related articles, which is my point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the consensus created here through other's aplication of policy and interpretation of guideline shows this topic as worthy of notice, it will become one of those accepted exceptions to the NF's sub-section NFF. What must be remembered is that each guideline is headed "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  No guideline is absolutely immutable. We do not adhere to them blindly if doing so prevents improving Wikipedia.  What is cogent is policy specifically allows that we may have an article on an anticipated event:  The "subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred".  Is it your assertion that the topic does not have sufficiently wide interest to merit an article had the event already ocurred?  And with coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time, is it your assertion that the topic demonstrated by others as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:43, 24 December 2011 (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.