Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Tower series film adaptation


 * 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. Happy to userfy/incubate on request but the policy is clear that this needs to be deleted from mainspace Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Tower series film adaptation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(First nominator's reasoning:) "This article fails to meet any of the criteria of notability for future and unreleased films. For further explanation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they pertain to future and unreleased film see Notability (films) and WikiProject_Films/Future_films." — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Last I heard this was off again anyway, so as of right now it's more likely than not that no movie will ever be made.  The small amount of encyclopaedically relevant information can be adequately summarised on one of the existing Dark Tower articles under a "film adaptations" section, in the style of upcoming or failed adaptation attempts in other franchises. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I am the original nominator. My issue is that fundamentally this article fails all WP:NFF guidelines. I believe it even fails WP:FFILM arguments, which seems to work toward defend articles for future films. As DustFormsWords stated only a few sources in the article are encyclopedic and the rest are conjecture and rumor. For instance an article of Stephen King saying what he *thinks* will happen now that the studio has dropped the project is not encyclopedic (at least not at this time). This article has existed for 13 months and in that time only a hopeful release date, a director and one actor offered a role have appeared on the horizon. This is not enough to warrant an article. Not only could the relevant sources be merged into The_Dark_Tower_(series) but in fact those sources are already in that article. This also makes the article proposed for deletion redundant. Danleary25 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate for a bit. Recent news seems to allude that the film may be back on track, but we can place it in limbo for a while and allow its return to mainspace when filming is confirmed to be imminent. However, editors might also reasonably consider whether or not this topic might qualify as an reasonable excption to WP:NFF: simply put, does the topic under discussion have the in-depth and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time so as to be presumable as "worthy of note"?  In the meantime, and as events surrounding the topic of this film's production ARE decently sourcable, we need consider the GNG and give serious consideration to redirecting this title to either Stephen King or Ron Howard where the topic of this planned film may be read of context to these fillmmaker's careers.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I maintain it should be deleted. This article has existed for 13 months. I believe that has been an unbelievably fair length of time for an article that I believe has had grounds for deletion since day one. What point is there in incubating the article now when if we had done soon sooner it could have remained incubated for over a year with no noteworthy or encyclopedic sources to add in all that time? Realize that in the last year only a director, one actor and a release date (which both WP:NFF and WP:FFEVENT state is not enough to warrant an article) have surfaced in regards to this future film. No matter how much closer we get to the alleged release date (May 2013. Over 18 months in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL) incubation will not help matters. There is absolutely no guarantee that this film will happen, and all the sources are people involved saying they hope it will happen. If this future film keeps its article when it has no principal photography date, no shooting location, no current studio, no announced financiers, no cast (save the lead) then there is no debate for keeping any future film off wikipedia. Why are Iron Man 3, Arrested Development the movie, or Star Trek 2 (2013 film) (currently afd'd) not currently allowed articles when they have astronomically more substantial production activity and news coverage? Danleary25 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, I do not see this article as well sourced. Of the 17 sources currently on the article only 5 are from the last year. Most of the remaining 12 sources are older news bits that are now antiquated and serve no function to explain current state of this future event. Also WP:FFCLARIFY says that the planned film must "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Five news blogs reporting the current state of the future film in the last 10 months is not, to me, significant coverage. Finally, the currently up-to-date sources laid out in this article make the article little more than an RSS feed for news regarding a Dark Tower movie. Danleary25 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but we do not gauge "old" news coverage as "no" news, and we do not discount coverage in multiple reliable sources simply due to age. And since I am the author of WP:FFCLARIFY (thank you for quoting my essay), please do not try to even imply that I am supporting blog talk, as A) I am in no way asserting that blogs are reliable coverage, B) I am not stating that this is an allowable exception... only offering a consideration, and C) I am not suggesting that the article be kept in mainspace. And while WP:NOEFFORT is not the best of deletion rationales, I concur that the article not being improved in 13 months is a decent indicator that it is currently not suitable for main space. Your references to other articles aside, apparently it seems what we have here is simply that you do not even wish the topic to exist for even a very short even if nowiki'd temporarily in the limbo of the article incubator... from which it will be deleted anyways if not improved in a reasonable amount of time. To those parts of your argument, I politely disagree... as D) collaborative editing is always a preferred solution, E) if it does not improve it will disappear with no fanfare, and F) redirecting the title of a topic not meriting its own article to a place where it can be sourced and discussed in context is reasonable and per instructions of both policy and guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to The Dark Tower (series) as per suggestion at WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis there is enough information known to write an article, and it is sufficiently complex that a separate article is less confusing. This is a matter of convenience more than principle.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 1 December 2011 (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.