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 as per the lack of deletion requests outside of the nominator and the fact the article is properly referenced. There is no problem in having a separate discussion on whether this article should be merged or redirected to the article 1906 (novel). A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). Reason for PROD was Film does not seem to have even entered production yet; WP:CRYSTAL Illia Connell (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons given in the (ahem) 4th AfD nomination, namely that this is a properly-sourced article, and the film is notable for being so much delayed, and discussed as such in multiple reliable sources. A reminder that notability is not temporary may be relevant here, and this challenged production has achieved that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. It is sufficiently sourced. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article is problematic in the sense that it continues to purport an upcoming film, and it is false to claim that. It should not use the film infobox nor the film categories. It could be treated as a "film project" article (though I really dislike that disambiguation term), or it could be merged to 1906 San Francisco earthquake. This can keeps being kicked down the road, and we need to consider summarizing this topic in a more succinct manner. It is really just coverage of plans for a film that, quite realistically, may not ever happen. To cite one such example, Shantaram (film) is a section in the novel's article as something that never came to pass. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Erik, your example is of a planned film verified as cancelled, not about a speculation that this well-covered topic might be cancelled sometime in the future. As notability for a film's production is dependent on in-depth long-term commentary and analysis, and not to WP:WAX too harshly, we may always consider exceptions.... just as we did for Superman (film project) , The Hobit, The Avengers film project , X-Men: First Class (film project) (et al) based upon the level of long term coverage. Were this some unmade film with only one or two meager sources making some meager announcement, I would tend to agree that it could be written of someplace such as 1906 (novel). However slow moving this project may be, the level of analysis and commentary over such a long period of time renders this topic notable. If it were never to be made, we'd still have a notable topic... per guideline and policy... and could discuss at the speculative future time just where this might be merged if thought neccessary... remembering that even in a film's failure to be made the topic might still be found notable.... through coverage.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that this topic is nebulous. This topic is not a film; it is an aggregation of reports on plans for a film. It is a kind of a pseudo-history especially due to incompleteness. If production does start, then the very nature of the topic changes into that of an actual and tangible film. That mutability is why I endorse merging this kind of content to the underlying reason for the coverage. I was mistaken to say that the 1906 San Francisco earthquake would be a place to merge to. It really should be Brad Bird himself; his career is exactly why reports are made about what this director plans to do or what any well-known director plans to do. I do think that the contents of this article could be greatly compressed, especially due to the fact that no film exists right now. Unfortunately, the article sounds like it does, not just in what I mentioned above, but in (at the end) including two block quotes from Brad Bird and somehow extracting 74 words from this that mentions Brad Bird and his project literally in passing. Giving the content an overhaul will give editors a better idea of the most salient details of this director's unfulfilled plans. Erik (talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It already has a very brief, proper, but non-comprehensive mention there. As we do have verifibility of its background, history, scheduled director, and completed screen adaptation, the topic of this planned film in pre-production is, just as with the proffered examples of other exceptions, not quite so nebulous as one might assert. And as Brad Bird is souracble for many things beyond just this one project, I would think that any proper merge to the Brad Bird article would overburden the target. User:Robsinden's suggestion below is a more suitable alternative, if not "kept". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per both policy and guideline. Continued coverage, perhaps specially due to its setbacks, which has allowed this one to be one of those very few allowed exceptions to WP:NFF in that the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines and through its meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CRYSTAL's All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced and in its otherwise surpassing the instructions per WP:GNG's If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. We CAN speak about this topic somewhere, and WP:NTEMP instructs that we do not require something that hadenough coverage in the past to somehow remain in the news or have continued and ongoing coverage. As for IMDb page on this project not being updated... so what? We're not IMDb. We do not demand nor expect ongoing and continued editing of any article, once notability has been determined. And a point well worth consideration, is that even if not yet greenlit, Brad Bird's wish to make a film about the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 continues to receive coverage:"Brad Bird gives update on his 1906 San Francisco Earthquake Film Project", Geek Tyrant, December 2011 "Brad Bird's Latest '1906' Project Update and Why It's Taking So Long", First Showing, December 2011"Brad Bird Says The Script For '1906' Is Still In Progress ", MTV, December 2011to support the years of ongoing topic coverage.[1][2] We learn that while the project is by no means dead, his wish to make the film has been held off due to his now directing 1952 for Disney.[3][4][5] AFD's #1 and #2 resulted in deletes in 2007... more than 5 years ago.... reasonable AT THAT TIME the requisite significant coverage of this topic was lacking. Problematic as future films sometimes are, and as many times as some are returned to AFD, earlier consensus should be respected and this well covered topic should not become a WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. That said, guideline itself tells us notability can be established through a film's production meeting notability criteria. Certainly not all future projects are notable... but sometimes one can be found, and we allow such articles. I disagree with User:Erik that this film could be dealt with properly in the already overlong long article 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which deals about a different topic in great detail. Overburden anyone? The article IS about the film after all... and just as policy tells us, it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 1906 (novel). I suggested this at the last AfD, and Schmidt worked on that article to allow for this possibility. This still seems the best solution per WP:NFF to me, and we seem to have a content fork anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not "kept" per consensus established at the last two AFDs that this topic nerited being an allowable exception to NFF due to years of coverage, commentary, and analysis, a merge and redirect to 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation would be acceptable to me, and I would even assist in doing so as to WP:PRESERVE information that mightotherwise be lost to our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to point out, the closing admin of the last AfD commented "A merge or move can be discussed at the talk page." It appears we never had that discussion! Whilst we all agree the content should be here on Wikipedia, I see no reason for it not to be included on the novel article for the time being. You commented yourself that "if the project were to be cancelled, we could revist the topic of the planned film and speak toward a redirect at the time...". Considering the extended delay, I think we should consider the merge and redirect for now, then split the article once production commences. The work you did before has led to a content fork, where both articles are showing nearly identical information anyway. What is at 1906 (film) is essentially a duplication of 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last AFD was one of the reasons I created the target and expanded on the film topic at that location. IF consensus here concludes that the topic IS notable enough to be somehow and in some way written of in Wikipedia, I would be quite happy to discuss and perform a redirect and merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1906 (novel)#Film adaptation; this article did not even link to the novel article, so I did not realize it existed and already had such a "Film adaptation" section whose content pretty much matches what is here. A stand-alone article is not necessary when there is no film—the only definable topic here—at hand. Like I said above, it is history but not really. I would also recommending tightening up the section at the novel article. I was hoping to give this article an overhaul but now I see too much of a redundant mess to take action at this time. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:GNG. It is sufficiently sourced. Not impressed with (ahem) 5th nomination. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.