Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Challenge (2011 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 George Clooney. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Challenge (2011 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Film is no where near production and has not had notable coverage. It is too soon for an article on this film. BOVINEBOY 2008 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I spent a while looking for any other mentions of this film. No IMDB listing, and the only reference provided was from 2009. Per WP:NFF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 00:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to George Clooney. He and Warner Bros. optioned the film rights to Jonathan Mahler's book in 2008, and in 2009, Warner brought Aaron Sorkin in to write the screenplay. While we have enough sources for it to be mentioned in the Clooney aricle as one of his acquisitions, this is waaaaaay WP:TOOSOON for a separate article to even be considered.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We can merge the information, but I don't see the purpose of a redirect. There is not ever a chance that "The Challenge (2011 film)" will need to be a searchable term, barring another film reaches notability in the future. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even unmade films might be spoken of someplace if sourced and in context. As the project was optioned and a screenwriter contracted, it is still possible that Warner might move forward. As a searchable term (see dab page) a redirect protects the history for a possible return if the project does go forward and by its sending readers to where it is already spoken of and sourced in context to Clooney, and also acts to discourage an untimely recreation if the project does not.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect MQS makes some fairly valid points. I went back and forth on this, but it's contractually associated with sufficiently lofty names that a redirect is potentially beneficial for the reasons MQS raises, as well as being, as redirects almost always are (certainly in this case), mostly harmless. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:21, 17 January 2012 (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.