Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robopocalypse (2014 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 Robopocalypse.  MBisanz  talk 02:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Robopocalypse (2014 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NFF, films which have not commenced principal photography are not considered notable. Articles about films should not be started until principal photograph has commenced and this is confirmed by reliable sources. Thus, this article should be deleted. Bob Re-born (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment But it's got Steven Spielberg. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. When A-listers are involved, there's enough media coverage to support an article. WP:GNG tops WP:NFF. Redirect per Tokyogirl. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Redirect to Robopocalypse. I'm not going to argue if the article is kept, but right now I don't entirely feel that there's enough here to merit it remaining a separate article. Everything that is currently in this article is summed up in the movie subsection of the book's article. Filming hasn't yet started and no one has been officially confirmed as starring in the film, which is probably why filming hasn't started yet. There is a lot of chatter so far, but they all say the same thing: Spielberg will direct the film, Goddard and a few others have been signed for screenwriting and other "behind the camera" type jobs, and that no stars have been officially confirmed. It's just a little too soon, although it's one of those things that is almost guaranteed to become notable. However "guaranteed" is a funny thing since a lot can happen between now and its release. We can't guarantee that Spielberg won't shelve the film or that one of a million other things won't happen to set back the film's progress. Notability isn't inherited by Spielberg directing the film and technically, there isn't really a film, not yet anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has 8 references that should be enough to put notability out of the question as well as having official sources with official information there for this page is notable and fits Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. (H.Brian Griffin (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Have a look at WP:NFF and make a case as to why we should make an exception to the guideline for this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Robopocalypse per the notability guidelines for future films because filming has not started and is not guaranteed to. When it does, we can have a stand-alone film article for the ages. However, Spielberg's name is not ensuring—he took a very long time to ultimately produce Lincoln and has yet to do anything about Jurassic Park IV despite talking about it for over a decade. In addition, if we were to have a film at some point, the article should be at Robopocalypse (film) and not here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Others may be interested in a related AfD: Articles for deletion/1906 (film) (5th nomination) for 1906 (film), also a planned film by a well-known director, though coverage is a bit different in this case. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Robopocalypse. Clearly fails WP:NFF, which also states "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".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2013 (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.