Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor (2011 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. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF are pretty solid arguments here. It will likely be produced, but until then, it's a crystal ball. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thor (2011 film)

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

Explicitly fails WP:NFF, as filming will not commence for at least another six months. No prejudice against recreation when the film goes into production, but an article is premature at this point. PC78 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. Drawn Some (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep has received much greater-than-usual attention, as a gnews search on Kenneth Branagh Thor confirms. I keep reading about this film (and the spate of upcoming Marvel films) in the papers. This is a notable production. JJL (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF specifically states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. " If you want to change the guidelines feel free but that is beyond the scope of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment it also states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." There is no need to change the guidelines. That having been said, I do not believe that the rationale below is sufficient for an exception to WP:NFF. JJL (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is quite a frequent occurence around here. I see no outstanding exception to be made for this page.TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- Considering they just cast the lead:, i'd say that's enough for starters. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Marvel has yet to confirm this, regardless it is not enough grant notablity for the creation of this page per WP:NFF TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's called development hell for a reason, and plenty of "major" films fall back into it after going into pre-production, even set design. If anything, it's more of a risk for large-budget big productions than smaller ones. NFF exists for a specific purpose, and this is a textbook case, not the exception. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Thus far, Marvel Studios have produced every film that they have announced a director and cast members for. It should be kept and improved upon, the article if deleted will only be recreated within a month's time. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Marvel Studios has only produced two films thus far, besides the film has already been pushed back no reason to believe it can not be pushed back any further. TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFF TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the objections was that "Marvel has yet to confirm this" but if this is the corporate website rather than a fansite, I'm inclined to say keep.  I think that when the studio that produced popular films about Spiderman, the X-Men, Iron Man, etc. is doing press releases, it's gone beyond the crystal ball phase.  Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was in regards to the casting of the lead. Also WP:NFF specifically states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per the notability guidelines for future films, which states clearly that until filming is verified to have begun, a stand-alone article should not be created. Information about the planned film rests comfortably at Thor (Marvel Comics).  JJL falsely claims that this is an exception to WP:NFF where a project of this type is one of the strongest reasons for the guideline.  It is a big-budget film can linger in development because of constant re-scripting or constant issues with its budget.  The film was first mentioned in December 2007, and now we see plans to begin filming in January 2010.  That's just over two years of no real movement!  Superhero films can get a bit of splash with casting announcements, but this does not equate the certainty of a film.  CmdrClow also misleads us about the instantaneous creation of Marvel films.  Iron Man (film) shows that development began in April 1990.  Spider-Man (film) shows start of development around 1985.  Hulk (film) and X-Men (film) shows starts of development in 1990 as well.  Captain America in other media shows 1997 development, and it hasn't even come close to being made all the years since.  So the claim that it will "only be recreated within a month's time" is dubious.  There is no high certainty with projects in the film industry, so in presenting them as existing films, it is a violation of WP:NTEMP: "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future."  This violation is evident here with the certainty of the article title and the knee-jerk layout with the infobox and the "Cast" section as if the film was all but made. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Going with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF for this.  Until we get closer to the release date there's nothing for this article here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no harm in keeping it; if it get's canned it'll be big enough news to remind people to delete the article, until then there are plenty of people who find it useful. Particularly considering its tie-ins to The Avengers and other films. 152.91.9.9 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any news or information regarding this or any other incarnation of the film can be found at Thor (Marvel Comics) TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguing no harm is not grounded in policies or guidelines. Just because the project development is verifiable does not mean a resultant film is verifiable; the notability guidelines for future films is clear.  Additionally, this does not mean information is deprived from Wikipedia.  This project got press because of its source material, correct?  If it was a no-name story by a no-name director starring a no-name actor, then it would not have gotten press like this one.  This planned film is making headlines because of the historical significance and popularity of the Marvel character Thor, which is why we have information at the anchor link that TripleThreat provided. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. The reasons are very good, practical ones, as many issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Many are announced that then fail to materialise, so directed use of the guideline is the best way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films that were never made and would therefore ultimately fail the general notability guideline; all that would remain is an article based on a short burst of news stories that appeared when it was announced. It should not be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls that can affect productions, especially in the current climate. Projects are put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln); others can be postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of strikes (e.g. Pinkville and Justice League). Erik has given some excellent examples of films of Thors ilk that had protracted development periods. Other films still in development hell include Jurassic Park IV (many would consider this a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight; in fact, it was originally supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. The recent film State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. The development of this film has itself already been pushed back a full year. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. For now, the best place for the Thor film adaptation information is in the parent article, where that wider context will best serve the general reader. Steve'  T • C 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as film that has not begun shooting. Шизомби (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep. If it isn't made, it will still pass NFF which says "Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."  The Matthew Vaughan version that wasn't made already passes that, and I think it's reasonable to assume that two articles will be written on the failure of this movie if it isn't made. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That part of the guideline does not apply here. This project has not entered production; it is in mere development, so it does not meet the " produced in the past" criteria.  You are thinking of unfinished films in which filming began but was never completed.  If filming did begin on a project like this, it could be an article on an unfinished film.  At this point, though, there is no such thing.  A similar example is Justice League, which was never produced because of the writers' strike and thus only remains part of the broader topic.  Thor (Marvel Comics) is the right place for development information.  It would be misleading to present this developing project as a film article since there is yet to be a film to be started.  Other examples of projects that never got beyond development: Shantaram (novel) and Logan's Run. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - casting is being done so it will go in pre-production soon and its well written. I don't see any reason to delete and shooting will begin as soon as a few other casts have been picked within the next few month and deleting it would just be wasting time...--Warpath (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Filming is not set begin as it stands today for another six months, besides the film has already been set back a year there is no reason why this can not happen again. Casting is no safeguard against production delays. The page will be easily recreated once the principle photography has begun per WP:NFF. TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Rules are we don't have articles about films until at least filming begins. Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:15, 26 May 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.