Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver & Black (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The nominator has already removed the AFD notice from the article as well as retracting in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Silver & Black (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is nothing but yet another of billions of films that did not actually end up happening. All there is here is a bunch of "well maybe this" and "we were thinkging this", by modern standards any film ever proposed by a major studio will likely have hundreds of random "news" updates about it because the websites need clicks. There is nothing of remote note here whatsoever. In a normal film article where there is an actual work much of this would have been cut because it is just cruft. ★Trekker (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC) At best some of this could be merged into a Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters article, but even that article does not exist yet, because so far there is no actual franchise, just like there is no actual film here.★Trekker (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I want to retract this nomination as I feel it was a mistake on my part


 * Keep: This is ridiculous, the article does not meet of the criteria listed at WP:DEL especially since it obviously meets the most basic of notability requirements. And the statement In a normal film article where there is an actual work much of this would have been cut because it is just cruft is just not true—this was always intended to be a "normal film article" and if the film was suddenly to begin filming tomorrow then none of the current content would be removed. The only reason you want to delete the article is because the film did not end up being created, which is not a good reason. It is clear that the work that was done on it received attention and has the potential to lead to new projects, which the article discusses, and there is clear precedence for this sort of article to exist and even become a good article (see Category:Cancelled films). You should only nominate an article for deletion if you think there is an actual problem, such as believing that it is not neutral, has WP:OR, etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * there is clear precedence for this sort of article to exist False. There are incredibly few of those articles at all. Anything can possiby be notable, that does not mean that more of those things must also be notable. And those even fewer good articles about cancelled films are cancelled films which received extensive attention after they were cancelled. Tons upon tons upon tons of films get announced and have scripts written but don't end up produced, 99.9999% of them will never be even be mentioned on Wikipedia because it's just news as usual. This article breaks NOTNEWS honestly. It's just a string of pointles updates without real value. This is nothing but cruft, this should, again, at best have parts be merged into a franchise article. Absolutly nothing here justifies an independent article. Just because it got coverage that does not mean it is independently notable, any film which gets announced these days get coverage. All these reports are clearly nothing but regular run of the mill updates without any real noteworthy stuff. It bring nothing positive whatsoever to the encyclopedia as a standalone instalment. you only nominate an article for deletion if you think there is an actual problem, such as believing that it is not neutral, has WP:OR, etc. False again. Most nominations are made because the subject is not notable. (This case.) Most badly written articles do not end up on AFD, they get rewritten if they're clearly notable, and the spammer gets blocked.★Trekker (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a script that was never picked up, it is a film that was literally in pre-production and about to begin filming before it was split into two new films. That is completely noteworthy, and it is far too early for you to say that it will not receive further coverage in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointless "points". It's actually common practise on Wikipedia to wait until a film actually stars filming before posting an article, preproduction means nothing really, billions of films get near filmming then get the plug pulled, not noteworthy in the least, not an argument. An unmade script can be notable too, so again, not an argument. "You can't prove it won't be notable in the future!!!" is also not remotly a good argument. Being cancelled and split into two films that also havn't happened is also not "noteworthy" whatsoever.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can call my points "pointless" all you want, but it does not make them so. I know that we tend to wait until filming begins before making an article, but if it becomes clear that filming is not going to happen then a judgement call can be made as to whether an article about the cancelled project can be made. That is what happened here, and I stand by it. The content in this article is noteworthy, it could get more noteworthy in the future, and there is no better place to put it. You just seem to be against it on principle, which isn't helped by your biased attacks at Talk:Venom (2018 film) where you said I was clearly trying to protect Sony content on this site that should not be in response to me following reliable sources and established consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "It could be more noteworhy in the future" is clearly crystal ball, and therefore another useless argument. You simply made the wrong judgement call in posting this at all. Should have put it into a draft of the Sony Universe instead or similar. You can claim me having an anti-bias, but I can also claim that I think you're showing pro-bias for this as the creator for this (and the fact that you're working on several Sony Marvel related drafts right now). Make actual arguments for why this is independently notable instead. Billions of films get close to production but eventuallty don't, Wikipedia standard is to not give them articles, why is this different?★Trekker (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely sorry for the Venom discussion, I was wrong and acted rather rude in that case, for that I'm sorry. I'm man enough to admit that I was being childish and should not have done that. You were right in that case and If you have dislike for me and distrust my judegment that is fair based on how I choose to act. But I still do not belive that this a subject which is justified to have an article. I just do not. It's not special compared to the many many many other projects that were lost in the ether.★Trekker (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2019 (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.