Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Salvio giuliano 14:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NFF. A tweet claims this film is in post-production, but it is an unreliable source. There is no reliable source to indicate that it has reached the threshold equivalent to principal photography, that is, that the bulk of the budgeting is committed. There is no source confirming pre-production. The sources for who is writing songs is mere mentions. There is no secondary source commentary on this future film to meet the WP:GNG and bypass WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On nominating, I failed to check there was a recent AfD. It was closed by User:Randykitty: “ The result was no consensus. A possible redirect/merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)”.
 * Replying to that close, this film is not a film, it is a future film in development hell with tweets attempting to give it credence. This is not material that can be merged elsewhere.  A redirect to a page that mentions failed films is not a good redirect, because that page would not describe this non-film. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What information there is belongs at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10551654/, and none of it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. As the previous AfD was "no consensus" with relatively sparse participation, I have no problem with another AfD a month later. As a courtesy, you might ping the participants in the previous discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Randykitty.
 * The prior participants from AfD1 (copying from https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Under_the_Boardwalk_(upcoming_film)) were:
 * 1. User:MikeAllen
 * 2. Special:Contributions/69.165.146.227
 * 3. User:Joyous!
 * 4. User:MrSchimpf
 * 5. User:Randykitty
 * 6. User:Patar knight
 * 7. User:NYC Guru
 * 8. User:Oaktree b
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete article about a future film for which reliable sources don't say that it has entered into the equivalent of principal photography, and the production of which does not meet GNG anyway—per nom. There are strong reasons to delete, and the no consensus AfD failed to deliver.—Alalch E. 08:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftily this article, because it needs multiple reliable citations.
 * CastJared (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The citations are mostly not reliable, and of the ones that should be reliable, they are wrong because the information contained changed, it was speculative/intended future and then didn’t happen. It’s called Development hell. Sources and all, it’s worthless. If it comes out of development hell, new sources are needed.  Probably, the cast will be all different. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak draftify or weak redirect to Paramount Animation for the time being, or delete later on if production goes no further, per WP:NFILM. It's a major-studio animated feature project, and we all know where a good deal of them have ended up over the decades. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete still a delete, nothing seems to have changed on the status of the film in the last month; film might never happen. Also, this isn't a major film for the studio, it appears to be a minor film, so we likely won't see any further news unless it gets put back into production again.Oaktree b (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a four hour biblical epic; this might be pushed out to a streaming service instead or go straight to DVD, was the point I'm trying to make. Oaktree b (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This time Delete for same reason as in the previous AfD. The article can be easily recreated if significant news on production is released.  Hopefully that time, the page won't be sourced to the US Copyright Office, an archived Paramount site, John Debney's personal website and Twitter.  Mike   Allen   13:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG SuperSharanya (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per WP:NFF. Please do not delete outright, this will eventually be moved to the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT applies. None of the current information is correct.  If is is resurrected, every detail might be different, and will certainly need all new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not satisfy film notability guidelines, as discussed above, or general notability guideline. If the sources are questionable, and they are, then the work that has been done has not been useful and there is no point to draftification.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above - There actually have been no updates on the film since December 2022. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2023 (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.