Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disputed redirect. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as separate article While the film fails WP:NFF, it also clearly passes WP:GNG, especially with all the post Comic-Con coverage. SNGs like NFF do not take precedence over the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Avengers (comics) in other media like before. There is no guarantee that this film will be made; we saw Justice League flounder because of the writers' strike. It is misleading to present this film as an upcoming film because we cannot guarantee that filming will begin. Once the camera starts rolling, the chances are much, much greater that it will be released. Before then, anything can happen to halt this project, which has been in development since 2005. For example, Spider-Man 4 has been discussed since the release of Spider-Man 3, but without the initiation of filming, it continues to be just a project, just like this one. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep only as a non-film, reflected by the constant indication of being planned, no film infobox, and no film-related categories. I would much rather see this as a section but am willing to see how this works. I'm only concerned that editors will try to restore the infobox and the categories even though there is no film in production at this point. That was the point of avoiding a stand-alone article, to reflect that this is not something tangible, to make a clear distinction between a film and a plan. This blurs the line, IMO. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media. WP:NFF is not without cause, theres no reason to believe that this film will be immuned from setbacks despite media coverage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media. Meeting the GNG is not a guarantee for a topic to have a stand-alone article.  The Avengers is already included at the article to which this title redirected, and I think it should remain so until after the start of principle photography in accordance with NFF.  Cliff smith  talk  18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect: It's not ready as an article if it's not being filmed. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The film was already set back a full year, we can not garauntee a 2012 release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly why it's not ready. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:NFF and Erik/TriipleThreat/Cliff/etc - no guarantee of release, not enough significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article, and already best covered in the main article with context. --  AnmaFinotera (talk  ~ contribs ) 19:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So... just how many thousands more in-depth articles in multiple reliable sources over several years would be enough for you to belive there could be a seperate article? Think carefully, as there are a few hundred thousand existing articles being put in the crosshairs for AFD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a seperate article- There was just a front page story on this film on USATODAY yesterday (no link at the moment, apologies). There's quite frankly more than enough inofrmation at the moment that leaving it in the parent article would become unwieldy. Just because it doesn't meet WP:NFF doesn't mean it hasn't earned its own article by now. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is presented as if The Avengers will come out. It says it's an upcoming film, it lists credits as if the film was set in stone, and it identifies a cast when nobody's performed their roles. This structure is misleading to readers when there is no guarantee that there will be a film. Like I said in my comment above, Justice League was a project of interest that had similar headlines attached, but it floundered due to a writers' strike. As a result, there is no film -- no actual credits and no cast. If filming begins for The Avengers, then it is a much surer bet, and there can be an article for the film until the end of time. Beforehand, though, it is misleading to claim that there will be a film when we've seen many examples of major-franchise projects flounder. In addition to the Spider-Man 4 example, Superman and Batman did not have films for long durations. Jurassic Park IV is still talked about, but nothing ever happens with it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2012 date is not something we came up with, rather it is from reliable sources. If the date chanegs for some reason, the article title can change with it, its hardly set in stone. Problems with tense can be changed with editing, and hardly require deletion. A simple change of "will come out" to "is currently scheduled for release in/on", would work, with a note right after that the date has been moved back in the past. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would be so "unwieldy" about keeping information about this project at its parent article? After all, if this doesn't get filmed, it should be there.  Check out Superman (film series).  We shouldn't assume that this is certainly going to be filmed and give this project its own article when it can be included at the article about its subject material (Avengers (comics) in other media) until filming starts.  Then again, some of it could be integrated (and perhaps even should be integrated) at Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.  Cliff smith  talk  21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media. This'll have its own article eventually - but we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Change it from (2012 film) to (Planned 2012 film) The name can be changed back to ints originalname once filming officially begins.--Dann135 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above we can not even garauntee 2012 at this point. Wikipedia is not a cyrstal ball. Once filming begins a safer assumption can be made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not rename it just (Planned film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dann135 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is as Erik stated we can not garauntee production at all. WP:NFF states there is no such thing as a "sure thing production". If and when production begins the article can be recreated. Remember there is no rush.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why rush to remove, when it has such potential to be fixed?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixing comes with the start of production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The "fixing" of an article "begins" with the first edit that acts to address a concern. See WP:IMPROVE and WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear, the problem of notabilty and verafibilty will be solved in time with the start of production. In the mean time the parent article is more can capable of covering the topic. Also nobody is advocating deletion just redirection.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? And I should have been more clear too, as I must not have been. Verifibility and notability exist abundantly... right now... through the quite literally thousands of in-depth articles in multiple reliable sources dealing with this topic, directly and in detail for an extended period of time.  Demands that the topic of a film's progress must await the film actually being be made, in order to merit inclusion as a seprate article, runs at total odds to the current wording of WP:N, as notability is determined through coverage and not through the article or topic.  It should not matter one bit what the topic is, if the topic meets WP:N and WP:GNG.  But apparently the tide has turned.  It used to be that a topic was presumed to merit an article if it met the general notability guidelines and was not excluded by WP:NOT.  It used to be that if a topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that were independent of the subject, it was presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.... and the more sources over a longer peiod of time the better... or at least it used to be that way.  It is becoming alarmingly apparent now, that, even if not in actuality, both WP:N and WP:GNG are being defacto demoted to WP:ESSAYS.  A once-widespread consensus for their use as beacons of notability is flickering and the beacons are dimming to darkness.  Though they may have been once respected, the consensus herein being established is that they no longer speak for nor represent consensus of the entire community.  If once-respected guidelines can now be so easily disegarded, they are no longer guidelines.  In spite of the "guideline" wording that heads each of their pages, they are now effectively demoted and now exist only as defacto essays.  And the new consesnsus, that once-important guidelines can be ignored, would seem indicative that the days of growth for Wikipedia may now at an end... as the arguments being used here in contravention to the once-respected instructions at WP:N and WP:GNG will, through the precedent apparently being established, allow these same arguments to be used at all AFDs, old and new, in removing information and shrinking the project.  Once upon a time, arguments supported by guideline had strength... and arguments ignoring guideline had weakness.  With demotion of guidelines, those once-strong arguments become negligable.  What a switch.  The new consesnsus has spoken: WP:N and WP:GNG can be ignored as weight of numbers creates a new consensus that it be so ignored... even though AFD is not supposed to be a vote.  I will caution though, that when articles once thought unassailably notable begin to disappear in an avalanche of AFDs... don't ask for whom the bell tolls... it tolls for thee.  And oh... a word to the wise... we are going to need a few hundred more Admins to handle the new workload.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that either this article or Marvel Cinematic Universe is redundant. Is there a way to merge the two articles since they both seem to be about Marvel Studios' attempts to connect their independent movie projects?-5- (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to comic Policy says we wait till filming starts.... It probably gonna happen but we gotta wait. Take it up the policy page if you disagree. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not policy. Or are you thinking of WP:V that states that what is written within these pages must be verifiable... as in a film being planned must be verifiable as being planned?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darnit, I hate that those types of Technicalities, We know its being planned. I know a lot of these films (Especailly this scale) that go into production hell Development hell No exception here in IMHO redirect worst case scenairo we recreate the article later. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Avengers (comics) in other media per WP:NFF.-5- (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A merger of these two articles would be innappropiate as they do infact cover two different topics. The MCU article is about the universe as a whole and is more akin to a film series article while The Avengers film project is about the development of a specific film within that universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect It's not in production yet... and may never be. Changing my mind, article should be redirected. JmacBrown (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion is inappropriate because this article can be rendered as a valid redirect and has the potential to host information about the film if it begins production. Why not get behind a merge/redirect option instead? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Purely speculative. Nymf hideliho! 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or at the least, Incubate As even more than the 37 sources on the article are added, meeting WP:NFF through coverage of its production will become an irrefutable slam-dunk.  In incubation the article can grow and be improved, and then be reviewed before return to mainspace.  And it must be clarified for those that erroneously think NFF automatically means we can naver have articles on unmade films: We do have them... determined as notable enough for Wikipedia, and allowed on a case-by-case basis, for WP:NF (and its subsection WP:NFF) begin with the very basic instruction "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline."  Wikipedia does indeed allow and appreciate articles on films not yet made and for films that have been cancelled if they have coverage that meets WP:GNG... which this one certainly does in spades.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was concieved in a sandbox at User:Fandraltastic/The Avengers (2012 film) and is still being maintained.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many articles are conceived in sandboxes... and many not done as well as this one. An editor's sandbox is not found unless one knows to look, and is generally not edited by others unless invited. Incubation encourages improvements and input from the entire community. Us.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this one has been so done well then I dont see any reason to change the status quo. And this paticular is not hard to find. Solicitations have been predominantly poseted here, Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) and here, Talk:Avengers (comics) in other media.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt is has been mentioned elsewhere... but one has to be looking for it and then track it down. For myself, I never heard of it before this AFD, and the Incubator has far more eyes than any user's sandbox.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the GNG. Even if it doesn't get made, it's already established itself.  Not getting made would just add another crush of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Either WP:GNG is our guide for what is worthy of note, or it is not. Wired, Entertainment Weekly (1), MTV, New York Daily News, Screen Crave, FW Daily News, If Magazine, ABC News, Daily Athenaeum, WDBJ, Christian Science Monitor, CBS News, Washington Post (1), IGN, Vancouver Sun, Washington Post (2), Washington Post (3), Entertainment Weekly (2), Entertainment weekly (3), Wall Street Journal, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Review St. Louis, MSNBC, and an uncountable many, many more.  It is to be understood that NF and its NFF are guidelines to be used with common sense and the accepted and expected exception, and that NFF is set to protect the project from an influx and overflow of articles about film projects that are not notable before being filmed, or articles about cancelled projects that were not notable due to their cancellation. It's not as if this was some backwater project with an unknown cast and crew. It IS getting an extreme amount of coverage... and WP:GNG has been met in every aspect and consideration... much more than been met.  Another applicable guideline that cautions about articles on future events specifically instructs "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."  Proper referencing is not a problem... and indeed this article could easily be over-referenced if one wished to do so.  As Peregrine Fisher wisely states "Even if it doesn't get made, it's already established itself.  Not getting made would just add another crush of coverage."  If some feel that the name Avengers (2012 film) is too predictive, then a simple name change to Avengers film project will suffice per ALL available sources and article content until a release date can be confirmed, and would serve even if the film ends up being shelved. So... is brilliantly and overpoweringly meeting the GNG our beacon, or is it not?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:NFF is to serve as a threshold between a film and a non-film. The Avengers is a non-film, but it is misleadingly presented as a film. The failed project Justice League perfectly applies here. It's the same kind of ensemble film in another comic book universe, yet its post-failure distilled form is fine as a section here. The problem with keeping it as a film article, especially at this point, is that it cannot be treated as history nor reality. If it's structured as a film article, there is a tendency to lean toward the impression of actual production when this is not the case. We can incubate if needed, but I've seen the same editor(s) develop it properly in the userspace and escort it into the mainspace promptly. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Erik: Either WP:GNG is our guide for what is worthy of note, or it is not. As a well documented article (and no one one is denying the extreme and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources), this project-in-work exceeds the threshold for inclusion and is "worthy of note" per WP:GNG.  It would seem your concern would be best addressed through regular editing to make the seem less like one about a released film and more about the well documented project itself... background... setbacks... castings... etc, and again, a simple name change to Avengers film project will not imply a made film.  I hope the closer notes that what can be corrected is not a reason to delete, as current state is not reflective of potential for improvement.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the lack of precedent of a so-called "project" article will just result in editors correcting it (from their perspective) to be a film article. This non-film is notable because of the comic book franchise, so it's clearly suitable in a franchise-related article, namely the "in other media" sub-article. We have the flexibility to move material around Wikipedia. Nobody is arguing for deletion; this AfD is an act on Jclemens's part as a follow-up to running into the 3RR limit. It is unhelpful because it summons a keep-or-delete mentality; I had to persuade another editor, see above, not to recommend deleting. Most of us aren't trying to prevent coverage; it's the placement of that coverage that's under discussion. WP:NFF has applied before, it applied to Justice League, and it can apply now, especially when people are being led to presume that there will be a film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many precedents for keeping such articles. Notability is in the coverage of the topic, and not in the topic itself.  And a worry about what some un-named and uknown editor might or might not do in the future is far more speculative than a well written, well sourced article about the events and coverage surrounding a planned film, WP:WAX arguments aside.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone support a article on a film that hasn't been filmed and might not happen to stay. The only good example of a article on something that won't happen is Star Wars sequel trilogy and I am not even sure that should be an article (maybe a section). This defianetly should be a redirection for the time being. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Please re-read WP:N and WP:GNG... and pay special attention to WP:Crystal, which even itself allows articles on future events if carefull and properly sourced: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." and speaking toward films, "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims" where it is advised to not include future dates unless verified, and explains how to avoid OR and ADVERT in presenting such articles... or are these guidelines now to be somehow be treated as essays or historical?  Or may we now pick and choose what parts of guideline to use and which to ignore?  Unless rewritten, NF and NFF are (were) not intended to be sraightjackets as they are being used by some in this discussion... but rather as guidelines to encourage proper sourcing for such articles so that they may meet or exceed the stipulations and caveats of GNG.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When applying WP:CRYSTAL, the closest aspect of it to film is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As I recall, this is part of the reason why the start of principal photography is the threshold. Before filming starts, there is still high uncertainty. After filming starts, the investment is made. Even if production collapses, that is usually an article. Unfinished films exceed unproduced films in historical relevance. Again, this is about the delivery of content. WP:GNG talks about presuming that it meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. It's not guaranteed, depending on how the subject matter to be handled. In this case, films that have yet to start filming have high uncertainty of being realized. It's about the format of a series of headlines about people who are trying to put together something that has not happened yet. It's not as tangible as a completed film, obviously. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Format. Style. Content. All we have to go on in determining notability is the several thousand articles in multiple reliable sources which have reported on the progress of this topic for several years. Article content and style are best adressed through regular editing rather than a redirect to a comic book.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This article may be well sourced. But this article isn't notable enough as a article on it's own for right now and it's basically a Crystal Ball which Wikipedia guidelines oppose. If this article is not proven to be a real film then we don't have the reliable source we need for it to be a seperate article about a film. Besides what can this article say that the Avengers (comics) in other media article can't already say. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With respects, it being well-sourced and having potential for improvement is the clincher. Notability is found IN the coverage and not in the topic or article.  You might wish to re-read WP:CRYSTAL before you state that articles on future events are disallowed, as that assertion itself is incorrect.  WP:Crystal advises against speculation and original research.  WP:Crystal acknowledges that coverage meeting (or exceeding) the requirements of WP:GNG when it instructs: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims."  So to assert a proposed event could never be notable or not already have historical coverage, is to ignore the WP:GNG and ignore the instructions at WP:CRYSTAL.  Yes... the article needs to be retitled to Avengers film project, as covering the progress of its development IS per guideline.  It can be retitled Avengers (20XX film) if or when the film gets released, certainly... but it is difficult to actually ignore the GNG or the project's extensive coverage over many years.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. The basic criteria for notability are met. We do not exclude articles based on assumptions about whether the movie will be made or not as long as they satisfy the general notability guideline, which this movie does. You need far more urgent reasons to ignore the general notability guideline and delete anyway (usually legal reasons or simular issues). Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to WP:GNG there is also WP:SS to take into consideration; this article contains far too much information to fit into the subsection of another article. Lampman (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —J Greb (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for the time being. While the film project is notable, has received media coverage, that coverage has been reliable and sourceable, with GNG we are looking a guideline. And there are two aspects of that guideline that are a bit nagging. First is "independent of the subject". At this point all of the information, in some form or another, is directly attributable to those with a vested interest in the project. We can dress it up as using/citing other reporting on what Marvel and Paramount have said or done but that is creating a news report or overview, not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Second is "presumed to satisfy". Since we are looking at a guideline, that presumption should take into account other guidelines and large consensus that deal with aspects of or could impact the potential article. In this case there are at least two other strong guidelines involved. The article, as structured, does but up against the guideline that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It presents the film as a done deal with a guaranteed release date. As has been well pointed out by others above neither of these things are the case. The project may fold before principle filming commences, the cast may change, the director may change, delays may happen. From that stand point the article would at the least need to be moved and the infobox and some section headers tweaked to reflect this is not yet a film. And that bring in the guidelines that the Film Project uses in maintaining and building articles. Those guidelines hold that a full article wait for principle photography starts since this makes it more likely that the film will be completed and released. Given that, it is reasonable to house the information somewhere other than its own article if possible. Since the logical place for this to be is Avengers (comics) in other media and not Avengers (comics), compression of the information is less of a problem. By design the IOM article was split off to allow for larger sections dealing with the adaptation of the comic in other media. In the cases where the adaptations have been aired, published, or released the IOM uses a short summary and points to the larger articles. While the material on the film project may need a slight compression, it would not create a case of unwieldiness or undue weight to have it in the IOM until principle photography begins. - J Greb (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "independent" is overly narrow. Sure, anyone anywhere can put out a press release on anything, but when a reliable source picks it up for their own purposes (pageviews, subscriptions, etc.) there is no direct relationship between the reporting and those originating the news. Arguing that all the sources are dependent on Marvel is akin to arguing that all coverage of the 9/11 attacks is dependent on Al Qaeda. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You could be right that it's overly narrow, but then we are dealing with an article on a product, an unfinished one at that, as opposed to a historical event. When all is said and done an article on a film (a finished product) should include material from reviews and critical comentary in addition to second party sourced production history. If an article is focusing on an early stage film project, as this is right now, and all that is cited is coming from the produced of the film - press releases, casting announcements/confirmations, PR interviews, and so on - then it is right to question if there is independant information available or if all that can be crafted is a promotional article. - J Greb (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the coverage of this not-yet-film? There's plenty of opinions floating around about the casting and director choices--no reviews of the movie yet, but it's attracted plenty of commentary from the genre-movie ecosphere.  Rough guess, more such commentary than 95-98% of movies that have not yet started principal photography.  That's a perfectly fine level for it to be right now. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment toward "keep": To address repeated concerns that article tone made it "appear" to be about a completed film, time came for a bit of good faith BOLD. Article has now been modestly rewritten and restructured to reflect it as a "film project" and not a finished film. Title has now been moved to The Avengers film project.  I will now be adding perhaps 20 or 30 more reliable sources independent of the project... sources respected as WP:RS for their editorial practices and reputation for accuracy.  We do not judge where they get their information, as long as they mainatin ther reputation for accuracy and their independence from the topic being discussed.  Another guide being completely overlooked are the instructions at WP:ATD and the editing Policy at WP:IMPROVE.  Judging per former "current state" does a dis-service to WP:POTENTIAL.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a nice directional change... and assuming this is a solid exception to Film's guidelines, it may be a good exemplar for this type of rare article. If the result here is to keep it, it may want to go for a cursory "GA"/"A" review to set the standard. - J Greb (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The change was important... and I had to do it instead of just discuss that it could be done, as the article is not about a film, but rather about the well-covered processs in its creation... coverage that allows the topic to be worthy of note. If or when the film is ever made, it would actually be a simple matter to rename the article and re-add an infobox and a section on release and reception.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I advise those that are commenting on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF to consider a few things:
 * Is this film going to happen? Very likely yes, though 2 years out means a lot could happen and it could be canned, changed years, whatever. But clearly there has been a lot of significant effort by filmmakers put into this already even if it is not in principle photography. The film clearly passes the GNG boundary with respect to coverage, so as per CRYSTAL, we should include this because the event is notable and almost certain to take place.  Even if you want to argue "almost certain to take place" may never happen, the amount of discussion on this film even if it fails would still allow us to include it per standard notability guidelines.
 * Those sited NFF need to realize that the key word there is "should". NFF is a guideline, and like most, needs to be taken with a common sense approach. I agree that in general the "principle filming" aspect is a good metric, as most films won't have that much detail until that point, but here's a case where you're looking at 30+ secondary sources to back it up, and have more information that would be appropriate to include within the main article (about the comic book) without pushing the size limit for articles.  To me, this is where the NFF "should not" should be taken as an exception.
 * The way I see it, we should be asking ourselves what is the worst that happens if the article is kept but the film fails to go through. We already have more than enough sources to establish whom was involved and the direction it was going in, and given the popularity of the comic heroes involved, it is not unreasonable to expect a number more sources will appear on it's cancellation.  At best, the film goes through, and you get even more sources.  Either way, it is a win for Wikipedia due to a well-sourced article.  If this only has a few sources, it would be a very different picture and I wouldn't hesitate to put CRYSTAL and NFF forward to merge the article until such a point, but here, we clearly have something that will remain an independently notable article whether it happens or not, and thus should easily be kept. --M ASEM  (t) 22:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GNG is a guideline, too, that presumes and does not guarantee a stand-alone article. GNG cannot, and does not, apply neatly to all the topics on Wikipedia. Here, we have an article collecting statements expressing intent about producing a film. The point of NFF is to establish a visible threshold between the intent and something tangible. So per WP:CRYSTAL, films that have not started filming are not "almost certain to take place" at all. The issue in keeping this as a spun-off sub-topic of the comic book franchise is that it makes the presentation dangerously close to that of an actual film. WikiProject Films has a long memory of unproduced films, where outsiders unfamiliar with the film industry's overarching trend that say "I can't wait to see it" when a film is announced as being planned. The absence of progress makes plans more easily forgotten, but WP:FILM has had to clean up articles that amounted to wishful thinking that never panned out. We'll see if this works out, but I'm pessimistic that this will be consistently treated as a non-film. NFF worked as a clear threshold with content being subordinate in the topic that was the reason why the planned film was being covered at all (because of the source material, because of the director, etc). Here, it is too easy to treat this as a film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If all the sources were from 2005 (when the movie is claimed to have been conceptualized), I may agree to some point, but this is including news that happen last week. That shows significant forward progress.  I understand the concern about announced vs in-production film projects, but the point is that NFF, the GNG, and all other application policies and guidelines work in conjunction to determine when a topic is sufficiently notable and standalone to have its own article.  This clearly meets all aspect of concern regardless if the film progresses or not. --M ASEM  (t) 22:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And it is hoped that a closer will note that through regular editing while this discussion is taking place, the article no longers appears to be nor asserts or implies that it might be about a "made film". It is now a cleanly encyclopedic and well-sourced article about a specific topic whose coverage over years exceeds the caveats of the GNG.  I am reminded of the light which shines to illuminate our paths... included at the top of each and every guideline page:  "...best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".  Concerns with with style, format, and tone can be, and in this instance have been, handled through regular editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Given the state of the project I would normally favour a merge to Avengers (comics) in other media but given the scale of the coverage and the focus of the article I can't really say that such a merge is really necessary or even advisable.  WP:NFF is not a rigid rule designed to exclude from Wikipedia any and all coverage of films in pre-production but rather a flexible guideline intended to encourage editors to channel their energies in productive directions rather than spend great deals of time trying to dig up sources or info about projects that are in too early a stage of development to have a well-sourced article.  If it can be shown, as it has been here in my opinion, that a project would be clearly notable even if it died and all production stopped today than a stand alone article is not clearly inappropriate.  Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree the article seems more in point of it's objective. So I am neutral now. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and the amount of coverage this has already received. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:GNG trumps WP:NFF. In other words, if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even if the film doesn't happen, it meets GNG and will join articles about well-known film projects for films that were never made.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: per arguments stating that it has more than enough reliable and independant coverage and will become an article about a notable failed movie project even if the film never happens. Stephen Day (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (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.