Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tron sequel (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 no consensus. At this point, I don't see any clear consensus on what to do with this. With a little time, it'll probably become clearer if this one is going to evaporate into the wind or actually see the light of day, and it'll be easier to evaluate at that point. That does not, of course, rule out a merge, that's an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tron sequel (film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, until it is announced, it doesn't belong Spryde 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Tron rumored sequel (film). Per the below conversation the article was renamed to Tron rumored sequel (film) as it appears it will be a fine article on the phenomena of the sequel, which has 10+ years of reliable sources as revealed by Google. • Lawrence Cohen  21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Keep. Adding an AFD with 140 seconds of making the article...? • Lawrence Cohen  17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added a ton of sources and will be building out the article. News will only grow each day -> week -> month on this, given the original Tron's iconic pop culture place in history. We can certainly delete the article today, but will only need to undelete it as soon as there is any more press again. • Lawrence Cohen  17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not against the article but the timing is off. I think until it is confirmed, it is rumor and speculation. I remember rumors like this forever for Tron as well as the Superman Remake. Spryde 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Knowing that it probably will need to be recreated soon. I don't think there is sufficient documented evidence of being in the works. I believe it but I think I heard this a year ago too from a good source. Maybe enough rumors and reports of it being made will make it actually happen?--Nick Y. 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "I don't think there is sufficient documented evidence of being in the works." Uh, what? There have been attempted sequels for nearly ten years.  The rumours that directors and writers had been hired for a greenlighted story have been going around for several weeks.  Today it is all over the entertainment press. I can't believe you actually made this comment without doing a basic search. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Uh, Yeah??? There is no documented evidence of it being in the works (i.e. at some point in production). There have been years of rumors and stories like today's have come and gone before. There are no official announcements that are usually the threshold to overcome WP:CRYSTAL. The "news" sources from today are rumor mags and are very unreliable.21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter is not a rumour mag. SchmuckyTheCat
 * As he said, Hollywood Reporter is the main daily news service for the film industry. • Lawrence Cohen  22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Both the author and the nominator are a bit hasty. It is a little hasty to create an article within hours of a rumor - there may turn out to be some basis in fact but rushing off to Wikipedia to write an article every time some blurb is heard on the TV is not wise encyclopedia building.  By the same token, slapping an AfD tag on an article literally minutes after it has been created is a bit of a trigger-finger sort of activity - give the contributors at least a little time to try and edit up to standards.  That rant all aside - the proper action here is to delete as speculation per WP:CRYSTAL unless more sources can be found to show there is more truth to the rumor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * total 100% speedy Keep We could have had an article detailing all the rumored sequels, and aborted plans for sequels, plenty of times, all reliably sourced. Even if this current sequel attempt gets bogged down in production and canned, it has enough sourcing for an article. It is notable.  It is sourced.  The end. SchmuckyTheCat
 * That is a really grand idea. We can take this article, expand to cover the entirety of it--news sources with Lexis Nexis searchs will likely go back over fifteen years or more. Then, once enough proper information on the sequel itself arises, fork that from here into the actual so-called "Tron 2" article? It would be improper to include all this simply in the Tron (film) article as the section on sequel development will likely be larger than the main article itself. • Lawrence Cohen  20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is pretty standard stuff for widely expected sequels. We've had an Indiana Jones 4 article for three years detailing (sourced) rumors, conjectures, story writes, story re-writes, etc.  All this stuff gets published in the Hollywood Reporter and Variety, there isn't anything wrong with us documenting the process. SchmuckyTheCat
 * OK, then this shall be an automatic Keep then and the AfD can be closed, as Indiana Jones 4's article, and it's creation all the way back in 2004 as seen here set prescedent. Correct? If so someone can simply close the AfD now. • Lawrence Cohen  20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My only problem with that is IJ4 is in production now and just because it exists doesn't mean that this has to. IJ4 has a LOT more weight behind it than Tron 2. I like SchmuckyTheCat's idea of the upcoming page and once production begins, an article can be written. I am not opposed to the close, but I think it still is premature due to the fickle nature of hollywood. Spryde 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * IJ4 wasn't in production when the article started, that was my point. There is, and has been, enough hype, rumor, and false starts on Tron 2 for us to make an article documenting that even without the latest announcements. SchmuckyTheCat
 * Are you saying that we should keep this article because other similar articles exist? Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he is saying that there are 10+ years of reliable sources (casual Googling reveals them) that cover a Tron sequel that has been in semi-permanent development until this new series of stories broke. • Lawrence Cohen  21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could possibly support the concept of an urban myth/persistent rumors article. The phenomenon of rumors of a remake/sequel of such a notable film and the continuous chatter for years about it are notable enough for me. The name space currently used is not consistent with this concept. Also looking at the Tron (film) article it seems that there is currently more information about such rumors there, but is in need of more sources. I think a section should be developed about the sequel within the article until it becomes burdensome and/or the sequel is announced. I think that would be a better use of everyones time and energy. Again delete within this name space. I might be ok with Tron (film) rumored sequel or similar.21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I have renamed the article to Tron rumored sequel (film). Would you be willing to support this as a persistent article, which can always be moved to a proper sequel article with a great history section later? • Lawrence Cohen  21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain about it but I think it should be clear that that is the better name space for the current state of things. The new article will have to be careful about crystal ball and original research issues. I think the rumor/urban myth page has a chance to develop and survive but the "there will be a sequel" page is premature. Therefore delete this page and see what happens with the new name space (I vote rename and delete).--Nick Y. 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...what would be the benefit of deleting if I'm already renamed it? The whole article can be simply edited as needed. This is a content issue rather than a notability issue which does not seem to be even in contention now. Deletion would have no benefit at all now, since the page would just need to be instantly remade as Tron rumored sequel (film), which already exists now at Tron rumored sequel (film) since I've renamed it. • Lawrence Cohen  22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to delete the old name space and consider the new one.--Nick Y. 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Tron. DUH! I recognize that this announcement was made today, and it's very exciting, but it's not an article.  Mandsford 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong merge I have even tried to add to the article and found some good info but I don't see it growing sufficiently to warrant anything more than a section in Tron (film)--Nick Y. 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this AfD be a bit premature? Granted, I will admit the article would have been stronger if began in 2-3 days time, but the announcement of the sequel was out for all of 2 or 3 hours before I noticed it on Drudge Report. The sourcing and media coverage of this will only increase with each passing day or week, so that in a matter of days or weeks even a merger would just need to fork right back out of the main Tron article for space reasons. • Lawrence Cohen  22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —•  Lawrence Cohen  23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Articles for deletion/Shrek 4 (2nd nomination) is further evidence that this can be kept. • Lawrence Cohen  23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that film article should undergo a merge per films like Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV. The content is verifiable, but a stand-alone article is not warranted per notability guidelines for films.  That article and this AfD'd article can be recreated if they enter production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sequel has been rumored forever, but this is concrete action, and Disney is pretty credible when they announce their projects. WP:CRYSTAL permits articles about films if they are well-sourced and very likely to actually be produced. The sequel rumors alone should make it sufficient in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When did Disney announce this? There have been no announcements!!! It's just a Hollywood Reporter article people. They are not a reliable source. I see no certainty that this will happen at this point. Crystal ball requires reasonable certainty.--Nick Y. 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter is a professional trade paper in the Hollywood industry. It is completely acceptable as a third-party, published source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet the article does not mention an announcement. It simply reports about that "Disney has hired".--Nick Y. 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per the notability guidelines for films. Stand-alone articles of notable films should only be created if the film enters production.  There are many factors that can halt a project before it ever reaches production.  The verifiable content should exist at the original film article, and when this one enters production, a stand-alone article can be created (especially under the right title per naming conventions for films). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can I suggest that editors read WP:NF in regard to unreleased films? Take a look at the following articles which have been successfully merged and will be placed in their own source materials' articles if (not when, if) they enter production: 24 (film), Ant-Man (film), Driver (film), Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), The Flash (film), Gears of War (film), The Hobbit (2009 film), The Jetsons (film), Jurassic Park IV, Knight Rider (film), Land of the Lost (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Magneto (film), Metal Gear Solid (film), Namor (film), Onimusha (film), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), Spawn 2, Spider-Man 4, Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film), Superman: The Man of Steel (film), The Sims (film), Underworld 3, Voltron (film), Warcraft (film), Wolverine (film), Wonder Woman (film), and X-Men 4.  As you can tell, a lot of these projects are of franchises of similar notability to Tron, many being more so.  These items are merged because the development process of a project is slow and subject to many factors.  Just read the history of each not-yet-produced project to understand the delays that occur in the film industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Erik's comment above is the stake in the heart of this afd. The few examples of dubious premature keeps is an established bad argument for keeping other stuff. Also the article does not state that the film has begun shooting as is required by WP:NF. Btw I'm a big fan of Tron and can't wait for the sequel/reimagining or whatever it is.--Nick Y. 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge information into Tron as it is not noteworthy enough to hold its own article until there is an actual movie.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Tron. On one hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the whole idea of the movie might go nowhere, and end up in history's garbage bin.  On the other hand, all those canceled Superman movies have their own article.  But other scifi/fantasy genres that have had rumored movies that died after years of buzz but no activity (Star Blazers comes to mind). Maybe the collective effect of all the Superman movies merits an article, as much as been published and written about those movies, whereas here there's not much information beyond a couple of press releases. BrownHornet21 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To respond about the canceled Superman films, you'll notice that there is a request to merge the content to Superman film series, which is a better host for such content. Information about the Superman Returns sequel should probably be placed there, too, but the series article is not in the best shape.  A better example to cite is Spider-Man film series, which has the coverage for Spider-Man 4 in a "Future" section.  Sorry for the off-topic comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your comment above, by itself the article/film project does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines on notability for films, at least not until shooting begins:  "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." So until that time, I think it should remain part of the Tron article. BrownHornet21 20:03, 17 September 2007 (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.