Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Returns(movie)


 * 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. X clamation point  02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Returns(movie)

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

Pure speculation, we don't even know whether Nolan will make another Batman film after Inception, let alone the title or cast. Article tries to preserve itself with sourced facts from Batman (film series), but for the most point is the original author's speculation. Delete per WP:NFF and WP:SNOWBALL. Alientraveller (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete because information already existed at Batman (film series); creator improperly copied the content into a new article. Per WP:NFF, a stand-alone article should not exist yet (hence the existing section of a broader article).  Since the title is completely fake, redirecting is improper.  Delete in its entirety. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with above, and title would need an extra space anyway. JJL (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is highly unlikely to be the title of such a movie, and while it seems quite likely that one will be produced, there really isn't enough here to justify a separate article. JulesH (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Has it been confirmed that there would be a third Batman film in the current rebooted series? I don't think there has been, so it breaks Wp:CRYSTAL. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The intent is clearly there after how The Dark Knight was received, but intent does not translate into actual production of the film. That's why we cite WP:NFF, which says, "Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."  I do not think WP:CRYSTAL quite applies here because it says, "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."  Due to the nature of the film industry, films are not considered lock-ins until filming begins (at which point it is a surer bet).  This is why we merge content to a broader article; most pre-filming coverage is grounded in some kind of inherent notability, such as the director, the actor(s) or the source material.  It's very unlikely to hear about a no-name director and no-name actors doing a film based on no-name source material until deep in filming or by the time of release, so that's why the "broader article" approach works.  For a related incident, see Spider-Man 4, which despite its box office intake, is not in production yet. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Speculation that is sourced is still speculation. Though I appreciate the author's work on citing to verifiable sources, and I hope that some of this can be placed in a short paragraph somewhere, there's nothing here.  Jeff Robinov "hopes" this will happen; Nolan is unsure, but other people are confident he will change his mind; Oldman "hinted" about a plot for a third film, "rumors are spreading" about who would be Catwoman, Riddler, Penguin, Two-Face, etc.; I'm sorry, but we can't make articles for the purpose of reporting the latest rumors.  Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete too speculative at this time.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Redundant and don't we have a rule stating you can make future film articles until shooting begins? Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do - to quote Wp:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  10:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It also helps to look at WP:FUTFILM, which looks out for these kinds of articles. For example, I created The Rum Diary (film) yesterday thanks to IGN's heads-up, after it had been merged to The Rum Diary (novel) for some time.  (It's been in development since 2000, yikes, about time.)  In contrast, Depp's other intended project, Shantaram, came close to production but still cannot take place.  When a film starts shooting, it's almost certainly going to be made, and even if it is not completed, it will likely have notability as an unfinished film.  (Films that don't begin filming don't count as such.)  Just my perspective from the front line with film articles, especially upcoming ones! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info guys. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - An article that lists speculation and rumors is not a valid article.RyanGFilm (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2009 (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.