Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Legacy (2025)


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Superman: Legacy (2025)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Filming has not yet begun. There is already a draft. Bamba9898 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It's in its early works, so it is a bit messy and needs some sprucing up. It does pass WP:GNG with the LA Times article, Rolling Stone article, and even the POPSUGAR article. It's also notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreeing with Conyo14. This being said, the draft is already quite advanced and pages should be merged as soon as possible to avoid the same work being repeated in different places.- MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)  22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with that. Conyo14 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For both of you, according to the guidelines here, there shouldn't be an article on a future film as long as its shooting hasn't yet begun. There is nothing about this film that makes it different from other future films that are still "brewing" in the drafts space and not in the main space. Bamba9898 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reminder, but at reading Conyo 14's comment, I am quite certain they had kept this guideline in mind. There are however exceptions to the NFF, which I am sure you know:
 * ""RARE exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed to be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a planned film is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS), and either there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"), to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist.""
 * (Planned films (essay)) I think this film project is one (based on the coverage it has received, is receiving, and, most likely will continue to receive). In short: "General notability>>Film notability". - MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)  23:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." There are reliable sources to the existence, the plot, and actors, hence the article passing WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The point here is, I think, that even if the "film" remains a project, there's already enough to make it notable.- MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)  23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of the DC and Marvel projects and many other big projects that are producing by important studios (such as Warner Bros. and Disney) are also stand in the conditions you mentioned, so why aren't they in the main space? As there is no source confirming that their principal photography has started yet.
 * From the short time I have been here, I have come to see that there is a general agreement that as long as filming has not started, there is no place for an article in the main space, and hence, this film, with all due respect to the reliable sources it has (like the other articles that are in drafts at the moment), is not an exception and should not be so.
 * Even at the draft itself mention:
 * "Please note: This draft should not be submitted for review or moved to the mainspace until filming has begun, per WP:NFF. The filming start date is currently scheduled for January 2024. Please see the draft for more information." Bamba9898 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you but I had already mentioned NFF above and I have read the draft and its note. Also I never thought filming had started. It did not and that was perfectly clear from the start. As to why there are no other exceptions to NFF in the Main, I don't know, create them if you are sure they are notable enough, but we are here discussing this film project notability in particular not a general state of Wikipedia.
 * The essay I quoted mentions (allow me to repeat again the original bold capitals) RARE exceptions to NFF, under certain conditions. Again, I think this is one and will leave it at that, thank you. - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank)  00:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if there was consensus that this film was one of the rare exceptions that did not need to wait until filming has begun, this version of the article should still be deleted so the earlier (and much better) draft article could be moved to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect Per WP:NFILM, this film does not meet the general notability guidelines for a mainspace article at this time, and will do so once filming begins. At which point, the draft would be moved, this article will be forgotten about. There is no point in redirecting it as we already have the Superman: Legacy redirect to DC Universe (franchise), where most coverage of this should remain until the draft is ready for a move. This should not be made an exception to the policy, especially since the draft is more developed and extensively worked on. To add onto that, this version of the article does not satisfy the reputable coverage over an extended period of time as the Planned films essay (which from my understanding should not override or overrule Wikipedia policy, only to help inform) states would be required for a rare exception. As the policy states in the section on future films: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. 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. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Allowing this article, which is undoubtedly a stub, to remain as a rare exception would set a precedent for similar future film articles to be made prematurely. We already have the draft that has existed far longer than this with adequate coverage, although any move attempt for that is likely to be rejected to uphold NFF. This could easily be redirected to the DC Universe entry for it if others want to preserve what little edit history exists, though this title will not be used as the inevitable page title in the long term. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per WP:NFILM, which says that films must have started principal photography in order to be in mainspace. There's already a well developed draft at Draft:Superman: Legacy. Plus, this is the incorrect title, because it should be at simply Superman: Legacy, since there's no disambiguation needed —which would also be incorrect here, as the proper disambiguation would be either or —. —El Millo (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy/strong delete This shouldn't be a controversial request, this is textbook violation of WP:NFILM — not an essay nor local consensus, but an actual notability guideline that has been thoroughly vetted by the community for years. It is exceedingly rare for a film to be granted an exception, so rare that I cannot think of an example off the top of my head. It would be astonishing and against longstanding consensus if this AfD closes as keep or no consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that (a) the article title is improperly formatted, it should be just Superman Legacy; (b) it duplicates Draft:Superman: Legacy, which has existed since 2018; and (c) it is so poorly formatted, WP:TNT would probably apply as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Trail, Facu, and Infinite. Completely fails WP:NFF, which is a guideline. There's a reason the draft is being created, so that this "notable" info can be added and built upon as it is revealed so the article is ready to go come production starting in January 2024. 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per comments above. It has long been established that standalone film articles wait for production to begin (usually this means principal photography commencing). In the meantime, the limited information gleaned from sources can exist in articles covering broader topics, such as DC Universe (franchise) where coverage already exists. The "rare exceptions" called out above is for situations where there is "too much verifiable information" to reasonably fit as a subtopic in an existing article. That doesn't apply here, nor has a strong case been made to demonstrate that an exception exists. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as the existing draft will be moved to the mainspace once filming begins. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2023 (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.