Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnomeo and Juliet

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 of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomeo and Juliet

[edit]

The whole article seems as if it were written by a studio executive. It also represents crystallballism. Ohyeahmormons 04:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No different than many other future film articles. Qutezuce 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. About "it seems as if it were written by a studio executive", just summarize the reactions from the people involved instead of quoting them in full, and the problem is solved. Other than those quotes, I don't see anything objectionable with the article. As Qutezuce said, it is just an article about a future film (one that's been talked about in the press quite a bit) like any other. This one's pretty high-profile, so while of course it could get cancelled (ANY future film could), there are plenty of sources verifying its existence. I think it would be more usefull for Wikipedia to have an article about it than to not ackowledge its existence because there's a slight chance that it won't be released (a chance which is always there with any future film). See: Wikipedia is not paper. Unless you're advocating that ALL future film articles on Wikipedia be deleted, I don't see any reason to single this one out. If you ARE advocating that, this is not the place to do it. Esn 13:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One more thing, the article needs more references or external links than just one from IMDB which requires an IMDBPro membership. I'll see what I can do (but please help if you know a good article about the film). Esn 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC
      • If it "has been talked about in the press quite a bit" then those press references should be cited in the article. If mainstream news sources are cited to show that the preparations for this film are already notable in 2006 I'll consider changing my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would use that Toronto Sun article as a reason not to consider this film reliable. Elton John and his partner are going to create a studio to produce this movie. Not only does the movie not exist yet, the studio that's supposed to make it doesn't even exist yet. Fan1967 01:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If and when the company actually exists, and production ever actually begins, an article may be appropriate. Too many things up in the air right now. What's the financing plan for the company? Who's going to run it? When is it going to start up? Until those things happen, too many things can fall apart. Fan1967 14:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are absolutely relevant. Until those things are answered, none of this planned production can even be remotely regarded as "almost certain". Fan1967 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's plenty of sourcing about people talking about planning a movie. That's a very different thing from sourcing about people actually making a movie. This kind of talk happens all the time in Hollywood for movies that never actually get made. Fan1967 14:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how you can believe that. When the company actually exists, and production is actually scheduled, you might say that. Until then, it's a plan, and those fall apart in Hollywood allthe time. Fan1967 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, a movie is not an event, it is a movie, so that section does not apply. This article is not about the date of the release of the movie, or the premiere party -- it is about the movie itself. And the movie currently exists, it does not exist as a series of 80000+ individual frames with accompanying audio, but it exists in the press, it exists in a early pre-production stage. Whether or not it actually comes out is a not relevent. If you want to argue that this be deleted you should be arguing that this film in its current state does not warrant inclusion because it is not notable enough. My counter-argument to that is that future films are acceptable fodder for articles (the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section specifically mentions articles about future films when it says that those articles must be careful not to be advertising, hence it makes them acceptable articles as long as they are written in an NPOV manner), and this film in particular has merited mention in the press. Qutezuce 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what Qutezuce just said. Even IF the film doesn't come out, it's been talked about in the press enough to warrant an article. There are films which have never been released that have articles about them (see: Category:Unfinished films). If it is never released, the article could be changed to say that very fact in the opening line; that it was an animation project for which Elton John was to do the soundtrack that was never released. Wikipedia is not paper, so I see nothing wrong with having an article on an unreleased film. Esn 14:04, 16 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gnomeo_and_Juliet&oldid=1071545857"