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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (Pricer1980). Redirect created. Prolog (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud atlas (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Too soon for an article: per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and according to IMDb this is "Expected to shoot this summer." Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation (though I would move this article to Cloud Atlas (film) if it is to be reused in the future). The guidelines say to create a film article when filming begins, and it is too soon right now. I'd rather not userfy; we can add pertinent detail to that "Film adaptation" section. There does not appear to be that much coverage besides the who's who for the cast and crew to warrant an incubated article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An entry in imdb.com is apparently where this comes from. I suppose a redirect would be okay. Mandsford 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now to Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation. Though the current article is unsourced, the film adaptation IS being discussed in sources,[1] [2] and the article IS sourcable... just not enough quite yet to merit a seperate article as an allowable exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion now only means recreation in a short while. While the guideline cited by the nominator is reasonable in most cases, I believe this film is an exception. The film is already getting major coverage in the Hollywood press due to the weight of the big names involved, so the article is already sourceable. Obviously, in any case, the article needs to be renamed so that the second word is capitalized. —Lowellian (reply) 00:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  With respects, the exceptions to WP:NFF are quite few, and usually call for a far greater and longer persistance of coverage to even be considered. At the moment, as the article is slightly too soon, I am sure the request would be granted if you asked that the article be userfied to you at User:Lowellian/Cloud Atlas (film) for continued work as coverage grows. I would even be willing to have it placed in the incubator for the same reasons... just so long as someone is wiling to work on it while it waits in limbo. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never edited this article and have no personal investment in it. I don't want it userfied to my userspace, and if I did, I would just do the userfication myself; your suggestion that I need help doing userfication is unnecessary and rather condescending, as if I was a Wikipedia newbie. —Lowellian (reply) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have never edited it either, nor do I have any personal investment it it, so please do not feel patronized, as my response was made in good faith and without me tracking your edit history. I do agree that it is beginning to receive coverage and stated as much in my own original redirect comment. It's simply that I feel it does not yet merit an independent article, and per WP:NFF, information in the section at Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation is suitable for now. We can disagree on that point certainly, and yes I would expect the article to be back in a few months if/when filming begins, and so understand your concerns about why should we delete now if we're only going to recreate later... which why I included incubation as a viable option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:39, 17 March 2011 (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.