Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fence (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  Delete Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fence (film)

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

This article is about a planned film, so per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. The article was prodded, so I've brought it to AfD. Steve explained to the prod remover how WP:NFF applies very well, so I'll repeat it here: ...the notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This isn't just pointless Wikilawyering, it's for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. There's a potential actors' strike coming up, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. These included the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram among many others. Projects unaffected by any strike shenanigans, yet which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. In accordance with the guideline, should it be deleted the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when production is finally confirmed to have begun. I suggest working on it in your userspace in the meantime, as I did with State of Play (film) for several months after that was delayed (and almost abandoned). All the best, Steve T • C 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"Hope you don't mind, Steve!  I figured it would be of good use to have WP:NFF fleshed out in that practical sense.  Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all! Oh, and delete per... um... me. Should the closing admin choose to delete, I suggest the article be userfied in order for the editor to work on it in the meantime. It can always be moved back to the mainspace when (if) production begins. Steve  T • C 13:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All this wind blowing is pointless considering the fact the movie has already begun production according to this and this. For An Angel (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're provided perfect justification for WP:NFF -- this says filming was to begin in 2006, but it didn't. This says filming was to begin in summer 2007, but it didn't.  Articles always mention intention to begin production, but that does not equate the actual start of production. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "but it didn't... but it didn't" but all you're doing it just disagreeing with the sources. How do you know it didn't? For An Angel (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they announced in the second reference that they would begin filming in summer 2007, then it's clear the first reference's mention of filming plans didn't work out. As for following the second reference, we have no verifiability that filming began as planned.  Looking at IMDb, there is no in-production status, as opposed to something like Shutter Island / Ashecliffe (article).  It's simple deduction.  It's not to say that such filming plans are irrelevant, but if there is not going to be a resulting film, such plans are not as important.  If production did start, then the dual delay in filming could be worth mentioning in the article.  At this point in time, there's no certainty this film will ever be made. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're confusing me. Are you using the term "production beginning" to mean the same thing as "filming beginning"? If not, then what do you mean by production? Does a film have to begin production or does it have to begin filming before it warrants an article? For An Angel (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll try to explain. There exists an overall production cycle, in which there is development, pre-production, production, and post-production.  Production can also be the equivalent of filming.  I should have said "filming" all along because that is what I meant.  Films can go through the development and pre-production stages but never go beyond that; see the other examples we've cited.  Hope that clears things up. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically, you're saying film can't have an article until it begins filming? For An Angel (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been the argument so far. There is no certainty that filming will begin as planned.  If it doesn't, we have no chance of a full-fledged film article -- one that will include the plot, the cast, the production, the reception, et cetera.  That's why WP:FUTFILM encourages placing mention in a broader article; most announced films have their roots in some kind of notability, such as the source material or a prominent director.  For example, the film Toussaint still has not begun production, so I've merged it.  If it begins production, it can have a full film article.  You can see the precedent established at WikiProject Films/Future films/Articles for deletion; there have also been merges. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete uneless and until a reliable source tells us that principal photography has commenced, per WP:NFF. AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Erik and Steve. The burden of proof is upon those wishing to prove this passes NFF, not those nominating for deletion. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:22, 15 July 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.