Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises
Closed per nominator's request. The result was keep. Jhenderson 7 7 7  22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * redirect Although this film is highly likely to happen, i still think that this article should be userfied or redirected to another area, its too early for it to have its own page. Incubation would be fine as well. F.R Durant (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever we do, pro or con, we should strive for consistency with other, similar films. The discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project), concerning another high-profile studio film that has not begun principal photography, may be useful. Also, to avoid redundancy, a lot of this has been hashed out Talk:The Dark Knight Rises. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as long as the article is treated not as a film but as instead as plans for one. While we have the notability guidelines for future films to start articles when films begin principal photography, it is my impression that the franchise momentum behind this project is tremendous enough that even the project's failure would be spectacular (and notable) enough to warrant its own article. Most projects canceled after development would fade into oblivion; this one would not. Worth noting that the article was incubated before, so if deletion is the consensus, the page can be moved back into incubation instead. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is also worth mentioning, but Nolan is also the kind of director who tends to follow through with his commitments; most films he was attached to, he actually produced. (Although, he was to The Prisoner one time without any film coming of it.) Directors like Ridley Scott and Guillermo del Toro are "attached" to countless projects, and it's rarely clear what they will actually do. Nolan seems to pace himself well enough with his projects. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:NFF can be overruled when a film that is going to happen already has proven notable per WP:Notable and WP:Crystal ball. It just can't be treated like a film. And that's just what we are doing. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is too much information to put this back in Batman in film; it's worthless if no one can even find it. --Boycool (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are exceptions to WP:NFF, just like every "rule" here. This article is one of them, for the reasons Erik pointed out.  I'm not going to repeat it again.  The article gets an insane amount of traffic, so obviously readers are wanting to know about this upcoming film and this article delivers that---while being clear that the project has not entered principal photography yet.  Of course things and happen, people can die but being Wikipedia we have the tools to handle such events. Thank you. — Mike   Allen   02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read on Wikipedia. The film has been confirmed by WB, there's really no sense in deleting it especially when the article gets that much traffic. There's just way too much official word going around for it to not have its own page.Kelzorro (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sure there's been stupider. Second, per WP:CIVIL, we don't insult other editors for making a suggestion we don't agree with. It would be right and proper for you to strike out or remove your sentence above insult F.R Durant. You can strike out or remove this comment of mine at the same time. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per depth and endurance of coverage allowing this one as one of those very rare exceptions to WP:NFF. and Note to the nominator... I am sorry that your own article Superman:Man of Steel (2012 film) that you had been working was speedy redirected one day after you moved it from userspace to mainspace.  I saw you tried to get it back into userspace, but your "move" only moved the redirect.  So what I did was do a cut-n-paste of a pre-redirect version into your userspace per your wish to continue your work. The edit history has thus been preserved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is just stupid. Geeky Randy (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree with keep. Out of respect I must also advise you to keep the guidelines WP:Civil and WP:Bite in mind. OK! ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconding Jhenderson . There's no reason whatsoever we can't speak like civilized people. It doesn't take any effort and there's actually less typing involved if we don't insult people.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't insult anyone. But thank you, Wikipedia Superheroes! Geeky Randy (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * keep it its a confirmed movie by the directors not just speculation or nothing 24.185.84.37 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets the notability guidelines, has valid sources for all it's information, and not has far too much information to be merged back into the Batman in film article.--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh.... redirect although obviously the tide is headed elsewhere. Notable, sourced content is inevitably shoe-horned in with rumours and crystal-balling in this type of page; thus the inevitable page protection over and over again. When the film is released, the content of the page will be entirely different, so I don't see much value in the current version. The amount of traffic a page gets is a classic bad reason for an AFD vote, keep or otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would page protection not help prevent rumors? In addition, the article is pretty closely monitored by a group of editors, so the rumors are kept in check. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can report properly referenced discussion about this project, and we keep the content to what is verifiable. If filming takes place, the pre-filming content will stay mostly stable, while I'm sure we will need to update the details of filming. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As long as whatever is in the article is properly sourced per policy, protection would help prevent improper editing from editors who insert their own opinions rather than rely on reliable sources and what they offer. That a page gets attention from inexperienced editors is a reason to keep an eye on it, not delete it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So someone may add a rumor is a reason to delete it? This is article is watched by many editors.  "I don't see much value in the current version".  You may not, but 691,331 other people do.  — Mike   Allen   03:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, another "lots of traffic" argument that won't fly. No, occasional vandalism and unsourced content is not itself a reason for deletion. But talking about the future inevitably involves speculation. Hairhorn (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is why policy specifically addresses that issue, not insisting on truth... only that whatever speculation is reported in reliable sources be identified as speculative and be well and properly attributed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * keep as previously stated there is too much information for it to be redirected and it is confirmed.Yids2010 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Basing on consistency alone, many films that never even were made have their own articles (see Star Wars sequel trilogy).  However, basing on Wikipedia policy alone, this definitely satisfies the notability guidelines.  Additionally, why delete an article that is just going to have to be recreated in a few months or so?  It's not hurting anything to be here; almost every sentence in the article states that events are "planned" or "scheduled" to happen.  This definitely doesn't violate anything, as it tells exactly what the status of the film is at this point. (Hope I didn't ramble, sorry) Kevinbrogers (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most projects that were in development and never go beyond that stage do not warrant their own articles. Policy states about using news reports, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." One of the notability guidelines says, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." However, per policy, we can report the discussion in some form, which is why the notability guidelines for future films encourages putting the coverage in a broader article and waiting till filming begins to create a stand-alone article, one about a topic of enduring notability. It's more likely for a film in production than in development to be released. For example, Shantaram (novel) – Film adaptation compiles news reports of a project that was never produced. Here, the difference is that this project is such a powerhouse where it's fair to say that any screw-ups in the development process will be well-analyzed. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good points. A couple years ago, I created an article for the Narnia movie that came out last year, and it was deleted for this very reason.  However, since this film is so widely anticipated, and because of what I've read about Nolan (from your earlier post), I think we should make an exception to the guideline. Kevinbrogers (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it works here. :) Happy editing! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep in addition to reasons already stated, I think I should also bring up that The Dark Knight Rises (film) should be redirected to The Dark Knight Rises article. I do not understand why it's not redirected there to begin with. -- FaithLehaneThe  Vampire  Slayer  07:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point! Appears that the redirect is locked. Can an editor here with admin privilege unlock the redirect and point it toward The Dark Knight Rises? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested it to the one who protected the redirection page but due to his being upset of me creating it as a article at the time I guess he never did it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A major blockbuster movie in pre-production is definitely article worthy. Res Mar 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Close per WP:SNOW for good measure. Feed  back  ☎ 20:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)