Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brüno (film)

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 Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brüno (film)

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

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This film is a case in point; the article reports that shooting was scheduled for late last year, but it is still not under way. The article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, eyh, given that this is a rather high-profile film project, and there are already sources available, I'd be inclined to WP:IAR here with regards to the notability guidelines for future films. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
  • I'm not entirely sure what evidence there is to suggest that this film warrants exception; higher profile projects than this have been successfully deleted or merged with a parent article. And unlike some of those, there's no real feeling that this film will go ahead at all; the script hasn't been written and even Baron Cohen seems to be going cool on the project. Steve ^{T • C} 12:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete until it can be verified that principal photography has begun. The Variety article did not explicitly state that shooting had begun, and IMDb's status (treating it as a "rule of thumb" here) indicates that filming has not begun. (IMDb's presented release years are mere estimates and will update themselves if they prove to be wrong, though.) There is not much concrete information here that can't be added to Sacha Baron Cohen's article for now, considering the likelihood that this article could remain perpetually stubby. Lankiveil, WP:NFF is generally in place to avoid this stubby nature as it can't be guaranteed that the article will go on to be a full-fledged film article. Some projects like Justice League can be highly touted by ultimately not get to production right away. My opinion is that if a project gets media coverage, there is usually some previous degree of importance to it. Very few are going to cover a no-name film by a no-name director about a conventional premise. However, the source material or the director or writer or actor are prominent enough so a project is mentioned. That's why mentions and merges are encouraged in the future films department's process. Obviously, if filming can be shown to have begun, the article can be revived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy Can always be recreated after filming starts.--The Dominator (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So that's a delete, right? Just so we're clear. I'd also suggest that userfication is probably unnecessary in this case; there isn't a lot of information in there. Still, if anyone wants to do that, then they're obviously more than welcome. Steve ^{T • C} 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, but there are some refs that can be kept even though they'll quite possibly become obsolete after filming starts and more sources are available.--The Dominator (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep-this film is obviously notable it's from a major studio and will have a wide release, more sources are findable and even more will be available. people will look for this article on here. its obviously going to be sucessful too. its counterproductive, as it will be recreated when it comes out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's made, which is by no means certain. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside due to all kinds of mishaps. Scripting issues, financing issues, casting issues. If the film doesn't go ahead, the available information on the film will likely become a mere footnote (metaphorical, not literal) in Baron Cohen's article as he carves out a useful career for himself over the next couple of decades. How notable would a film production which never went ahead be then? The explicit purpose of the notability guideline for future films is to keep a lid on things like this which might not, ultimately, warrant a separate article under the general notability guideline. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:09, 17 February 2008 (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.