Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Move to mainspace. Consensus is that the topic has significant coverage per WP:GNG, even though principal photography has not yet started. The draft clearly is ready for article space. WP:NFF and a fear of deletion appears to be preventing established editors from improving Wikipedia in this case. Wikipedia rules should not work to discourage established editors from collectively working together to add notable, stand-alone content to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Incubator/Ant-Man (film)


This is an odd case. From what I can see this article was created in the incubator as opposed to being moved into it. This film seems to be in "development hell" having been in the pre-production stage for some seven years. They're planning to start casting it sometime this year. After 13 months of "incubation" we should be able to determine if this is notable enough to be moved to mainspace, or should be deleted per WP:FFILM. (and yes, I realize that is "just an essay" but it is a good guide to what kinds of unmade films we should have articles on)  Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Addendum: per my remarks below, I would consider merging with Ant-Man a viable alternative as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The article has been and continues to be in active development by numerous editors. The film itself is moving forward, with new information being regularly added. Unfortunately, project guidelines do not permit the creation of film articles, until filming has begun or unless there are special circumstances. Many other film articles have been created this way with great success, including: Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) and most recently The Avengers: Age of Ultron.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead of Article Incubator: "Incubation is not designed for creating or developing new articles outside of mainspace." It is for articles that were already created and subject to a deletion discussion, as an alternative to deletion. It is not meant to be the permanent location of any content, and at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made. It's happened before, for example the Dark Crystal sequel had a director attached in 2006, yet it was never made. This is probably a good candidate for just merging with the article on the character, it can be spun back off easily enough if and when the movie actually starts production. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not meant to be permanent, it is a temporary central location for editors to work in collaboration and nurture its development until such time it is ready for inclusion. Merging is not an effective option as it would dwarf the existing article, which is tangent to its primary scope. If this current incarnation of the film, falls through we can reevaluate it, but there's no need now as things are progressing exponentially.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Progressing exponentially? Really? They've written a script and shot some test footage. They haven't even cast it yet. The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point. I'm not saying this will never warrant an article, but keeping it in incubation for whoever many years it will take to put together something that can survive on its own is not really how we normally do things. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes really. Just read the article, things are moving faster at an increasingly greater rate. Also this has been done many times before with great success. There's no reason to delete an incubator that is as active as this one. Others I might agree with but this incubator is far from stagnant. I actually forsee this article surpassing WP:GNG before WP:NFF if things keep up like they are, if it hasn't already. Many released films are not as well covered as this one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again with your wording Beeblebrox: "The release date is basically a "best guess" at this point." Have you not looked at the whole article and the sources and just zeroed in on the first paragraphs of the Development section? Here are four from the page discussing facets of the films increased production: solid release date, leading MCU's Phase 3, confirmation of script completion and scheduled casting start, and how the film relates to the film preceeding it, The Avengers: Age of Ultron. All of this contributes to the film no longer being in "developmental hell" and progressing. Exponentially? I don't know if that is the proper wording, but new info is coming in more frequent than before and it is moving forward to surpassing WP:GNG as noted above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Beeblebrox, you are wrong when you say that "at the pace this film is moving it is possible it will never end up being made". The film has been given a solid release date and this incubator was created when that info was released. TriiipleThreat created the incubator in July 2012 when it was announced at Comic-Con that the film would finally get a release date. As Triiiple has stated, this article is not meant to be permanent in the incubator, only to nurture the content until it has reached film page notability to be added to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't really reasonable to tell me I'm wrong for saying there is a possibility of something. Also, just FYI, adding "strong strong" to your oppose doesn't actually strengthen your argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies on the double "strong". Didn't realize it happened like that, or in the edit summary either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TriiipleThreat's statement. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think article needs some form of incubation however I don't know if this article completely qualifies according to WP:AI?. Was this article deleted previously? The actual film has been developing for a very long while, but it does appear to be picking up towards filming and release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel of Mischief (talk • contribs)
 * If it is that much of a problem to have this in the incubator can we move the article and its history to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ant-Man (film)?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think leaving it in the incubator is a problem, however it may be a better compromise to move it there. Definitely don't delete it though. Ang el of Mi sc hief   Talk  17:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The release date is not a "best guess" but a definitive date given by Marvel Studios. Casting is scheduled by the end of the year, and filming in 2014, similar to The Avengers: Age of Ultron.Richiekim (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me try, if I might, to restate my case here as I feel some of you are not quite getting it, possibly because I did not explain it well enough to begin with. I am not in any way suggesting that we should have no content on this film. What I am suggesting as that our readers are better served by having it somewhere where they can actually see it as opposed to hidden away in a dark corner like the incubator. So, from that perspective, either moving it to mainspace or merging it, even perhaps doing a WP:HISTMERGE with another article is preferable to leaving it in the incubator for another few years while we wait for the movie to actually be made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we understand your argument, we just don't agree with it. The main points are already included in the mainspace. We wish to continue to develop it in article form in a central neutral location with all the inherent formatting and minutiae that might not be appropriate in an article with a larger scope. Also as stated, we don't believe it will be years before the article is deemed notable for inclusion. If it comes down to that and the incubated article becomes stagnant, we can reevaluate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Principal photography is scheduled to take place in 2014, so it will be in the Wikipedia mainspace by then per WP Film guidelines. It's not going to take "another few years".Richiekim (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If not sooner per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * move to mainspace per Beeblebrox's argument that eyes are not on articles in the incubator. Searching for a term does not ever lead you to the incubator, the only way to get there is to try and create the article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this if we agree that there is "significant coverage" per WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. However if not, the incubator should be kept. There is already information about the film in the mainspace. The point of the incubator is to develop the information in article form.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Considering the tortured development history of this project, I would rather keep this detailed history incubated until filming is confirmed to have begun per WP:NFF. It seems more likely now than before that Ant-Man will actually be filmed, but it's still not certain. As it has been said, the main points are mentioned at Ant-Man. I think the level of detail is appropriate for the encyclopedia when we know we have a tangible product, the film itself, for which we will have coverage like critical reception and box office performance. Hypothetically speaking, if no film was ever produced, this would be a lot of indiscriminate detail in this form. We can wait a little longer to see if the film actually enters production, and then we can have an article for the ages. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I oppose deletion as there is sourced encyclopedic content here. I don't really understand why this could not have been developed within the Ant-man article, however. Merging there may be the best option. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is to develop the information in article form. The main points are already in the Ant-Man article, what is here is just more elaborated and includes many more superfluous details that are more appropriate for a stand-alone article. The incubator should either be kept or made into a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just in the time of this AfD, two more references have been added, bringing the total number independent reliable sources used in the article to 24 (there many more reliable sources re-reporting information from other sources). If kept, we will soon be discussing if the article meets the "significant coverage" requirement per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as a fine argument for moving it to mainspace, not for keeping it incubated. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets get through this AfD first. Then we can tackle any mainspace notability concerns.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, this is exactly the right time to discuss whether this should be moved to mainspace since that is one of the possible outcomes. If there are 24 reliable sources it doesn't seem like something that should be hidden away on the incubator, it should just be an article. I don't understand why you are so insistent that it remain incubated when it apparently doesn't need to be. The incubator is explicitly not a place to indefinitely develop articles and in fact it was neer intended to be a place to create aricles but rather a place to temporarily hold them as an alternative to deletion. Frankly it is starting to seem more like a desire to WP:OWN the content rathwr than put it out in mainspce where readers can see it and the broader community can work on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * AfD is not the process to asses if an incubator is ready to graduate to the main space. That should have been done on the talk page. If you want to graduate it then fine but you did not need to nominate it for deletion first. Also I flatly refute the ownership charge and I think others might as well. From the beginning this has been a collaborative effort. We want to see the incubator graduate, which is why we work so hard on it.

Putting aside the small point that this is MFD not AFD, you seem reluctant to explain why this should not be moved to mainspace as you are supplying what appear to be procedural objections while at the same time making a good case for notability. Despite it being mentioned several times, you don't seem to get that this is actually not how the incubator is supposed to be used, things are only supposed to land in it after an AFD, not be created in it and kept there indefinitely. This has been in the incubator for over a year despite there never having been a consensus to put it there in the first place and despite the fact that it is actually a misuse of the incubator.

I have never actually said we should have no content on this film, but I do not see why a draft article with 24 sources, that you insist is only going to get more notable, cannot be moved to mainspace. Could you provide a clear, specific, non-procedural reason why keeping this in the incubator is preferable to moving to mainspace? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not object to graduating the incubator to a stand-alone article in the mainspace. However I do not think we should risk deleting the incubator in the process because if it is not notable now it soon will be. There was never any intent to keep this article incubated indefinitely, we have steadily worked to increase the subject's notability in article format during its time in incubation. As I mentioned before, we have graduated several articles in the same manner with great success. Incubation is a better alternative to userfication, as it is centrally located.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion per... everyone else, and move to mainspace if it is ready to go. BOZ (talk) 14:40, 26 August 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.