Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near future in 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. There may be some merit to the suggestion that this article be renamed, but that is more of an editorial decision rather than one for AfD. Shereth 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Near future in film

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

I think that this pretty much defines a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Many of the films on this page will never be released or will be shelved. Not only that but it is an opening to create articles on proposed films, which we've always discouraged. And it can't be maintained very easily because which films get listed and which do not? It seems arbitrary. Just a very bad idea. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 09:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's all sourced, and many of these films will be made, just as many won't. Alientraveller (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL. And I agree with the nom, this has the hallmarks of WP:CANOFWORMS.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously passes WP:CRYSTAL because the information is verifiable and sources are provided. Furthermore WP:CRYSTAL explicitly allows for the possibility of discussing forthcoming movies and so the nomination is quite misleading. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge useful content elsewhere, or if nothing is deemed useful, delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles that by definition will have completely different content from year to year do not belong. I echo Esradekan Gibb's concerns about WP:CANOFWORMS. Skomorokh  12:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Some films in production have their own article, since it is near-guaranteed there will be a full-blown article containing a plot section, cast section, production section, reception section, and so forth.  The other links are appropriately in sections of articles related to the projects' subject matter, shown to be in development.  Woohookitty is providing his own opinion about these projects by saying, "Many of the films on this page will never be released or will be shelved."  Who is he to claim this?  All projects in the article have verifiable coverage to be in development.  People don't just announce possible films for the hell of it.  Behind the scenes, there are evaluations to determine how to produce a film.  For maintenance, what's the issue?  The films or projects (the latter meaning they aren't in production yet) have target release dates.  While this by no mean guarantees their actual releases, it indicates a goal that is already used as criteria for this article.  Obviously, some clean-up is necessary, and I would completely discourage citing IMDb to apply the criteria. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doesn't qualify as unverified speculation because the entries in the article are, for the most part, reliably sourced, being either articles featuring statements from actors, directors, producers, or studios regarding upcoming projects, or entries from reliable sources derived from said articles. That said, the intent of the article is best served by replacing the comingsoon.net sources with sources more informative and specific, because, while comingsoon.net is reliable, it is not a primary source, and in itself serves the same function as this wikipedia article.  So, instead of having  the cominsoon.net entry for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it would be more appropriate to reference, for example, a news article about how the stars are signed on to produce said movie.  WP:Crystal also implicitly allows articles on future releases of movies by warning editors to avoid advertising or unverified claims.  Also, all the films listed are in either production or development at some level, and therefore are not only considered future events, but ongoing projects.  And, finally, given that individual articles on planned movies, assuming that there are reliable sources in which to find information on those movies, are considered valid topics, a topic that functions as a list of said movies, functioning to paint a picture of hollywood production in general in the near future, should also be considered valid. Warhawk137 (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A per Alientraveller. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the above. Everything is sourced and verified. Wether these films are made/released is irrelevant, they have been announced, and that is all the article states. JMalky (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although the article's title does invite misinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL. Shouldn't it be 2009-2015 in film or something? JMalky (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All of the information can be verified. These have all been announced. Mollymoon (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If kept it needs a better title. To me, "Near future in film" suggests films set in the near future at the time they were made (e.g., Strange Days, Until the End of the World). Also, as JMalky pointed out, "near future" is an ambiguous time-frame. Grutness...wha?  01:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. the grouping of these films serves no end --T-rex 03:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an end to a Wikipedia article. Some of them change more than others.  Why should all verifiable information about projects beyond 2009 be merely rejected from Wikipedia because they are going to change? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that. In fact I wouldn't suggest that articles on any of these individual movies be deleted as they are all verifiable. What is useless is grouping them all together on a page like this. --T-rex 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it useless? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it has no use? There is no reason to group these films like this. The only thing they have in common is an expected release date of 2010 and beyond. We have no reason to think there is anything special about that. --T-rex 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not any different than grouping together movies that were released in, say, 2006. Warhawk137 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Films have been grouped by year, nationality, genre, and so forth. What is useless about a 2010 and beyond grouping?  We have groupings -- 2009 in film and before then.  These are projects that are targeted for a release date after 2009. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as the subject of the article is inherently unstable and violates NOTDIR. WillOakland (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inherently unstable" is an inappropriate way to describe the article. It is dynamic, and there are other dynamic articles on Wikipedia, keeping up with changing rankings or leadership or sports statistics.  This one isn't any different.  Also, I'm not sure how this article is like a directory.  The common theme of this article is that these are films in production or in development. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I draw a distinction between articles that change because someone put in the effort to break a record and one that changes merely by the passage of time. This article would have to be updated on a daily basis to stay accurate. WillOakland (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles about demographics around the world need to be updated pretty often, too. I'm not sure why the dynamic nature of an article would warrant its deletion.  Articles grow in different ways -- articles on 19th century science books will crawl, articles on celebrities will be constantly active.  Not to mention that heavily-vandalized articles (profanity, disputed figures) require constant maintenance.  I don't think that just because updates are necessary warrants deletion.  If anything, "daily" is an exaggeration as this timeline is far enough in the future that there are not many productions set up for a 2010 release and beyond. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is in line with the other ones of its type (2006 in film, 2007 in film, etc.), and the information while dynamic is fully cited. In short, the article is perfectly compliant with WP:CRYSTAL. Steve  T • C 08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a lot of movies are coming out after 2009 and it would be nice to have a page for it. --71.178.250.89 (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to 2010s in film. "Near future in film" is not a good name for an encyclopedic article. This article was originally renamed from 2009 in film because it contained information about 2010, while 2010 in film was originally deleted in 2005, and was protected from recreation from early 2007 until May 2008 when it was created as a redirect to this article. As the content for each individual year grows, per WP:SIZE it should split to 2010 in film, 2011 in film, etc. when there is enough verifiable information for each year. Until then the year articles should be redirected to the decade article. DHowell (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This article does a great job in organizing future film releases and it is sourced. I think these Near future in ... should continue with video games, television, etc... (Tigerghost (talk) 20:18, 26 June 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.