Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Eli


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Book of Eli

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

Article is not yet warranted per the notability guidelines for future films since filming is scheduled to begin in February 2009. In the film industry, there is no guarantee that production will take place. Article has been userfied at User:Erik/The Book of Eli per WP:FUTFILM. No issue with recreation if it can be reliably sourced that filming has begun. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —— Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmmm, WP:NFF seems to be in conflict with WP:GNG; that won't do at all I'm afraid. Notability is not time-sensitive, and the success or failure of the topic is completely independent of whether or not there has been sufficient coverage of it in reliable sources. So long as there is a neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic article to be written on the topic, we have no business deleting it. Keep unless a compelling, policy-based rationale for deletion is forthcoming. the skomorokh  00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that this film never takes off, we are left with nothing but a stub of intent that has no long-term value. It could easily go under the Hughes Brothers article, "In 2008, they were scheduled to direct the post-apocalyptic drama film The Book of Eli with Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman, but the project stalled."  WP:NFF is in place to ensure a fuller article, one that will have details about the plot, the production, the reception, the themes, etc.  Projects do come and go in Hollywood all the time; at this point, we don't know of the lasting value of this particular one other than what has been news in trade papers. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To follow up, the most suitable policy-based rationale is WP:NOT: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." So mention of this project could be mentioned at the directors' article.  Furthermore, it says that announcements are not sufficient basis for starting an article, and the current article seems based on announcements. Here's an example of an announcement-based article that wouldn't be in the mainspace: User:Erik/Isobar (film).  Some rustling about it, but nothing ever happened.  Hope you understand what I mean by all this! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I wish there were more references than just Variety, that would help its case as far as notability. I don't think it should be merged into the Hughes Brothers' article. This stub provides more information than would likely be included in the Hughes Brothers article (cast, writers, etc.). So I say it should be kept, and if the film doesn't go through, put it up for deletion or just delete it then. Killiondude (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree this article provides more information than the typical future film. But since films are often shelved before production even begin the WP:NFF rule that a film should have started shooting before having an article is reasonable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: the Hughes Brothers have had rumored on again/off again projects since their last film was completed nearly eight years ago, and none of those works have warranted articles. Better to wait and create it anew when there is more information available after production begins. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reasons that the notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production are very good, practical ones. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. So many projects are announced and then fail to materialise that directed use of the guideline is the only way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln). There's the potential actors' strike coming up too; look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (e.g. Pinkville, Justice League). Projects unrelated to the strikes, but which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; indeed, it was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve  T • C 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF and all Steve said about it.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:50, 1 December 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.