Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Complete Unknown (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I would Draftify this article but since a Draft already exists, I'm swayed by the arguments that NFF guideline isn't met. If there is a decision down the road, when filming starts, to Merge this article with the draft version or replace the draft version with this one, we can revisit this decision. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Complete Unknown (film)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

A Complete Unknown (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of a film that has not entered production. This makes the page not meet the requirements of the WP:NFF guideline, as well as the WP:CRYSTAL policy. In this films case, it has previously been put into uncertainty about it being made. There have been exceptions made in the past such as with Akira (planned film), however in cases such as that the topic has an extensive production history going back years. This film doesn't have that level of production history. Typically I would move this be moved to draftspace I nominate this for deletion as this topic already exists in the draftspace at Draft:A Complete Unknown. There is room for redirect to be possible, and a merge of the histories, however I have issues with the merge option, as the content of this page is essentially similar to the content of the draft, and any content different in the article is either of questionable sourcing, or not sourced at all. Rusted AutoParts 05:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Independent reliable sources about this production starring Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan are used in the article, and additional sources can be found by a simple Google search. Notability is further demonstrated by the article averaging hundreds of views per day in its first few days of existence. Note that articles must meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline. If there are any unverifiable facts, they should be removed, but that's a normal editing issue not requiring deletion. I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest. Station1 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the film doesn't yet exist? The film is expected to begin filming in August, which is four months away. It could easily slip back into development hell, or fall apart. This is why I invoked WP:CRYSTAL. It is this reason why so many articles relating to film or television go through draftspace, it allows the topic to be fleshed out gradually before it begins filming, allowing for a stronger GNG case to be met. A Complete Unknown doesn't meet this. "I can't think of a good reason why we would want to stop hundreds of readers per day from learning verifiable facts about something in which they have an obvious interest". Hundreds of readers are more than able to locate the topic in draftspace until such time it can be able to exist in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 06:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:A Complete Unknown has a total of 79 views in the 4 months that it's existed. A Complete Unknown (film) has over 2,300 in the last 5 days. Station1 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews do not trump guidelines. My point was that it's not impossible for readers to locate the draft if they need it until the film meets the mandatory guideline requirements for film articles, as well as doesn't stand in defiance of policy when it comes to CRYSTAL. Rusted AutoParts 06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy, applies to "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions." This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported (except the first paragraph, which should be tweaked slightly [done 5 May]). Station1 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number one stipulation of CRYSTAL is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This film is not at all "almost certain" to take place. "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines". So then your main point of it meeting GNG doesn't really hold water then? What's the purpose of establishing these guidelines if they aren't meant to be used to enforce the editing practices they were established to...establish. "This article notes verifiable facts that have already occurred and been reported". Gleeming the page, its at best bare bones production history. All films have an initial announcement of intention to be made, so that's meritless. Next sentence highlights how it was previously delayed (the draft article highlights how the project entire was uncertain given the pandemic too) and just an assertion of intention to make the film. Mike Myers has been asserting he plans to do an Austin Powers 4, yet here we are and it still doesn't exist, so the director asserting still planning to make it is meritless. The second paragraph is built upon casting rumblings that never saw any further corroboration from the more reliable of film sources. Seeking out Bale, Cumberbatch and Taylor-Joy being rumored as involved aren't strong production history indicators. All we are left with basically is the initial announcement, and Barbero's casting. By themselves they do not make a strong case that this film is notable, or definitely going to happen. I really don't want to keep going back and forth here, but the draft system is in place for this exact reason. Merge it or redirect it to the existing draft if needbe, but right now the topic is just not at an acceptable level of notability to justify mainspace existence. That's my case. Rusted AutoParts 07:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your point about "WP:NFF; a sub-guideline that is more restrictive than the notability guideline does not trump the basic guideline", NFF is a core arm of GNG for the specific topic of film, and how to weigh what merits notability that way. This is why it has it's own separate guideline page. The film is certainly not a given to exist. We've seen films fall apart before filming or never see further announcements about it and just fade away. What happened with Batgirl or even Gore makes this an even stronger point. A film can go through the production phase and still be cancelled. Depending on the project, it's production and subsequent cancellation makes it able to be notable still. However, A Complete Unknown, as i've said, just does not have that level of development to it. Rusted AutoParts 06:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A thing can be a notable topic without being a notable film (yet). A Complete Unknown is notable because multiple independent sources and thousands of WP readers have noted it. WP:N (which gets 35 times as many views as NF[1]) says a topic is presumed notable if "it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline" [emphasis added]. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And with the writer's strike now, it may never get finished, if they need to do script rewrites or revisions.... Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's speculation. I'm not aware of any source that says that. Station1 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another sound reason why CRYSTAL applies. Rusted AutoParts 04:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CRYSTAL applies to our speculation that the film might not be made, when no source does so. Station1 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that? We abide by CRYSTAL so we don't go creating premature articles on a topic that wound up not happening. The two things really aren't comparable. Rusted AutoParts 05:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Why would there be any source published speculating about whether a film gets made unless there is solid reason to think that?" Exactly. There is no solid reason to think that this film will not get made. But the main point is that even in the unlikely event it doesn't get made, what has happened so far is notable. Rolling Stone has written an article about it; no reason we shouldn't too. Station1 (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't a news agency, we are an encyclopedia, and if an article is to be here then it needs notability and to actually be definitively happening. We can't know that until filming actually begins, which is months away. Rusted AutoParts 06:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first sentence. But a topic is notable when reliable sources take note of it, not based on some arbitrary rule that a handful of editors come up with. Sources expect this film to be made, even if you don't, and in the unlikely event it isn't, that in itself will be notable. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By saying “sources expect”, you’re quite literally solidifying while CRYSTAL is a thing. Just because its production history is being reported on, it does not make it any way shape or form a solid guarantee to happen, I really don’t get how that’s confusing here. Just today we saw Blade, a film that was meant to start production this month, delayed due to the Writers Strike. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be caught up on the film, while I'm talking about the topic. The film will probably exist, according to sources, but even if it never exists, the topic already exists and will always exist and is notable, either as a film or as the planned Bob Dylan film starring Timothee Chalamet that didn't get made for some reason. Station1 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has no role in this. There’s quite literally thousands of movies that entered development at various points with various avenues of reporting that never came to be. The Akira live action film has an article because it has a couple decades worth of detailed reporting and history. As firmly illustrated here, A Complete Unknown does not. It has enough to be a paragraph in the Bob Dylan or James Mangold articles if it fails to pan out, not a separate Wikipedia article. Your viewpoint seems to hold disregard for guidelines and policy put in place to follow. All the draft articles for movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or other major tentpole projects follow them even though they can make an argument they are notable right now even if they haven’t started filming. But that violates CRYSTAL, so they don’t go to mainspace. It’s simply TOOSOON, and in violation of said guidelines and policy that aren’t “arbitrary”. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every article has a topic. A planned film can be a topic if its notable. I resent the statement that I disregard guidelines and policy. The first thing I said was that this topic meets WP:GNG. I also said this topic does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. I don't claim you disregard them just because we disagree about their application to this article. Both WP:N and CRYSTAL enjoy wide consensus. The idea that an article can't exist before an arbitrary event occurs is contrary to GNG and bad for readers seeking information. In fact there are at least a couple hundred articles about cancelled and unreleased films on WP. And if there are notable topics that are in draft space only because of an arbitrary rule, they too should be in mainspace. A basic idea of WP, and a reason it works to the extent it does, is that everyone gets to create and read and improve articles, not a select few. Station1 (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does that last sentence even mean? No one is depriving people of participating on Wikipedia. We are simply also bound to the stipulations put in place so we aren't supplying wrong or no longer true things. I said you seem to disregard these things because it feels like you're handwaving their basic restrictions. NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date" to which you dismiss because "well people are looking at the page". CRYSTAL states in it's first section "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which you also handwave because you claim we're speculating about it's potential cancellation. When you look at a guideline in the opposite way, of course you find yourself with ample wiggle room to reinterpret them. But it's antithetical to their purpose, and just plays pick and choose with where they apply. The subject of the page is about a film, that makes it beholden to WP:NFILM, which makes its clear a baseline necessity for it to be able to be in mainspace is that it's begun filming. If that had been fulfilled and someone nominated it for deletion I would be fighting for it to stay because it crossed that, but we have a film that is only in film. And since CRYSTAL asks of use not to play fortune teller, we cannot automatically assume it is a lock to happen. There is over 80 days left until the month it begins filming, which leaves it 12 weeks for anything to happen with it. Not just a potential delay, but potential fast-track, conversion into something else, the world could end, etc. There is no rush to get a future event out there, and given this isnt a means to completely remove A Complete Unknown off Wikipedia entire, its just making sure its' in the appropriate location for it's present state. Rusted AutoParts 03:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have proposed deletion and have support for that. It will be "completely removed". That is obviously "depriving people of participating on Wikipedia" with regard to this article. The article is not "wrong or no longer true", so that rationale doesn't hold. Yes, "the world could end" in the next few weeks, but no reliable source is predicting that, nor are any predicting the film won't be made. Only WP editors speculate that it might not be. Station1 (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for deletion because you refused it's move into userspace. You've been ardently asserting it's a topic, the topic does indeed exist on Wikipedia in an appropriate location at the draft, so "the topic" is absolutely not being completely removed. Draftspace is easily accessible, so no one is deprived. The "wrong or no longer true" part is in regards to the potential of falling through, which CRYSTAL compels us to take into account. This will also apply to your last point. We are not speculating, we are taking all possibilities into consideration. This is something no one needs a reliable source to do. Rusted AutoParts 08:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid further repitition, see my second comment above. Station1 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the notability guideline it more immediately pertains to. Rusted AutoParts 08:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. WP:GNG itself states that it is a low lying threshold which "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." An article meeting GNG is meaningless if the article fails to meet other guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Martin IIIa (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree as to whether GNG is "meaningless" if NFF applies, or if NFF is trumped by GNG, but either way, guidelines are not being "ignored". Station1 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your own words: "Guidelines are never mandatory, they're just guidelines." Martin IIIa (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's well-established that there are no "mandatory guidelines", as claimed above. Guidelines are supposed to be helpful synopses of general best practices, to be applied with common sense to specific cases, not "rules" that must be blindly followed. The goal should always be what is best for readers. Station1 (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bob Dylan Biopic 'A Complete Unknown' Starts Production in August". World of Reel.
  2. ^ McPherson, Christopher (April 7, 2023). "Timothée Chalamet Will Do His Own Singing in Bob Dylan Biopic". Collider. Retrieved 7 April 2023.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Complete_Unknown_(film)&oldid=1154249371"