Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shadow King


 * 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   keep. The critical fact here seems to be that there's a wealth of sources related to its previous unnamed state. Ged UK  13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Shadow King

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. All coverage I can find is from February, when it was announced that he'd be pushing ahead without Disney's help. I found no coverage prior to this announcement, and none since. Just a brief rush of announcements over the course of two days. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional sources not currently in the article:




 * Best, -- auburn pilot  talk  05:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are still from the same 3-day range, and all of them essentially say the same thing: that Selick will continue to make the movie without Disney's help. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I provided the sources linked above as reference, not because I intended to weigh in on this discussion. But sure... The essay you've linked to as your deletion rational states "A film could merit an article in Wikipedia if it meets any of the various notability criteria as set out by guidelines at Notability". Can you point out which parts of that guideline this topic fails to meet, also keeping in mind that notability is not temporary? Of the five bullet points under the general notability guideline section, which ones are not being met? By what policy or guideline are you suggesting this article be deleted? -- auburn pilot  talk  06:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, it's WP:ONEEVENT, given that literally 100% of the coverage is saying the same thing about the film at this point. Also WP:TOOSOON since it doesn't seem that any work has been done. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, excuse me TPH, but this is not ONE EVENT for those who look, as Disney's interest in The Shadow King can be traced back many years, despite the more recent coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? I saw no other coverage anywhere before this point. WP:PROVEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not adding or restoring material, but am instead pointing out an often-encountered problem with the Find sources assigned by the AFD template. Please see my longer response below.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge if appropriate). Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incubation is also acceptable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate as it is receiving coverage as a work-in-progress. In the incubator it can be expanded and sourced until ready for a return to mainspace. While this topic does not quite have the persistent and in-depth coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF,  the discussion of planned events IS allowed by policy and guidelines intended as instructional and cautionary, and not exclusionary.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of the article meets all criteria of WP:GNG. As for the WP:TOOSOON, there's "a film might meet inclusion criteria through meeting the General notability guideline" and Other evidence of notability shows "The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career," thereby warranting inclusion. Henry Selick is an established Stop Motion director. The fact he's still going ahead with the film despite its abandonment by Disney represents a pivotal movmement in his career. Part of the Other evidence of notability says "There are circumstances where reliable sources discuss an anticipated event, such as a proposed film, with enough depth and persistence so that discussion of the topic itself might meet notability through the WP:GNG, even without there actually being a film (yet). In such cases the article should not use film article templates, but instead be treated as "film projects" and be presented then as non-film but film-related articles." There are plenty of alternate provisions to simply deleting the article, which should be explored as opposed to its complete erasure. Silver Buizel (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's a problem that we know literally only one thing about this film? Or that literally 100% of the coverage came in a two day span? All we know is that it will happen. Nothing else has been said yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (Chuckle) Certainly not under the title The Shadow King as we learn that THAT title is only a recent event when reading a source speaking about Selick which states recently dumped his latest film project, leaving it homeless and at one point officially dead in the water. But now it’s picked up a firm title (The Shadow King), a new producer, a new partner, and some new hope." giving us an indicator that any pre-2013 news about Selick's relationship and Disney and this then-untitled project will not be under its current "firm title". Earlier references do exist if one searches for "Henry Selick's untitled stop motion feature". From 2010: Selick is hired by Pixar/Disney. Easily found in a quick look are sources speaking about his "untitled project", we have 2012 speaking in detail about the untitled project being cancelled: So with respects, it is incorrect to imply that "literally 100% of the coverage" is found only in a "two day span." We look further and voila... earlier information IS available. However, the topic was not ready for an article then, though being then a cancelled project might've had it qualify as an exception as allowed under WP:NFF. As the project has been given new life, its detailed SIGCOV in multiple sources then and now make the project notable enough for inclusion somewhere even if not in separate article. It should certainly be spoken of in more detail at the Henry Selick article, AND incubation of the AFD'd article is a suitable alternative to outright deletion... offering a place where policy instructs how souracble information on this production's history and setbacks can be added through collaborative editing until a return to mainspace is deemed merited.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per obvious significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Asked to return and voice an opinion, I believe the changes made to the article and the sources linked in my comment above are sufficient to demonstrate the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. I don't see a need for the article to be moved out of mainspace in order to be expanded before being moved back. All articles exist in mainspace as unfinished; some just need more work than others. -- auburn pilot  talk  00:10, 12 March 2013 (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.