Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercury (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 Freddie Mercury. (non-admin closure). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mercury (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

It's slated for 2014. Should be too soon. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I heard something about this film the other day about who is to play Mercuries wife, however I think at this present moment in time this article should be *Deleted and recreated when more is known Seasider91 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; full disclosure I started the article: Notable project with plenty of media coverage (already), spearheaded by notable people. Let this article snowball, there is already additional information to add. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Strong Keep" huh. Are you saying that cos you're the creator and you're biased, and don't want your page to be deleted? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful BTC. Being its author and having a personal conviction in the topic's notability, User:Another Believer is quite naturally allowed to opine a reasoned "strong" keep. Did you notice also, that even when wishing his contribution be retained, he has below also stated he would accept a redirect over flat-out deletion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sorry. Just my opinion you know. No offense. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NFF, from which I quote: "there is no 'sure thing' production". No prejudice to recreation if and when principal photography begins and notability can be more assured.  Ubelowme (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no objection to a re-direct over deletion, as discussed below. Ubelowme (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/Request: Please consider re-direct over deletion to preserve the article's history. I would still argue that this article could simply be expanded and snowball over time, but if others think the article's existence is too early at this time I request preservation (re-direct) over deletion. Why remove verifiable information if the article will just crop back up in the near future? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * a valid and reasonable request. See below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sacha Baron Cohen for now. Nearly all of the references so far appear to concern Cohen.  There's little material yet about other aspects of the film.  This article can certainly be recreated when more reliable sources concerning the film itself are available. §everal⇒|Times 18:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sacha Baron Cohen Freddie Mercury where this topic is already mentioned and sourced, AND can grow accordingly. Right now the topic is TOOSOON and fails WP:NFF for a separate article... BUT we do have enough per policy for it to be mentioned at the Sacha Freddy Mercury article, even if not yet meriting its own article. I appreciate the author defending his work above and his wishing the article to grow over time. I would encourage it being returned to him in the meanwhile for additional work as a userspace work-in-progress.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed mind as to location for a redirect. 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The working title for a film that is barely in preproduction, if that? Far too speculative to merit an article. But if the article title is kept, the proposed merge/redirect target is clearly wrong. Actors come and go in projects this nebulous (the recent not-any-longer-Lindsay-Lohan Lovelace bio being a perfect example), and the target should very obviously be its eponymous subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The topic is premature for a separate article. But WP:WAX arguments aside, the redirect was suggested simply because current coverage is about Sacha Baron Cohen and his involvemnet in the planned project which is searchable under its "working title". Policy specifically instructs how, if properly cited, coverage of anticipated events may indeed be covered somewhere within these pages... even when not meriting a separate article. If your prediction of Sacha's involvement evaporating or the project cancelling proves accurate, that section of his article can be edited to indicate his original involvement and why he was no longer involved. If a new actor replaces him, then we will have cause for a new redirect target. If the title changes, we create a new redirect. Simply requires regular editing, and we DO have an editor above interested in keeping track of his contribution. Redirects are cheap and serve our readers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind above as to redirect target. As the topic of the possible film is Freddy Mercury, no matter who ends up playing him, Freddie Mercury is a better choice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment But redirects always swamp the material in the target article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No... that would be a merge. A redirect simply sends readers to whatever location merits a mention per policy. As sources speak about Cohen in relationship to a "possible" film on Freddy Mercury, a mention of that is suitable at Sacha Baron Cohen. All a redirect does is send readers there. No more. No less. HOWEVER... I now think that a redirect to Freddie Mercury is the better place to redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Being somewhat amateur, I have indeed confused merge and redirect. A real thank you for your kind enlightenment.  BONKERS,  (clown talk) 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Brave (2012 film). As a regular matter, I'd say a film two years away from release is rarely notable.  But there are exceptions when a film is being well-covered already.  Deletion serves no purpose.  This one appears notable even if not made, as it was a well-covered planned movie.--Milowent • hasspoken  00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about per Articles for deletion/Major Matt Mason (film)? Another well-sourced planned film, but consensus was that it was too soon, release date also TBA 2014. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful about WP:WAX. Each AFd and each topic is judged on its own merits.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 23 June 2012 (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.