Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Human Factor (2009 film) (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Factor (2009 film)

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date (hopefully, Morgan Freeman's recent car accident will be followed by a speedy recovery, but it is one example of how a film might be disrupted by events beyond the filmmakers' control). We've seen a lot of projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so this is the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. Projects unaffected by any strike shenanigans, yet which are still in development hell, include Jurassic Park IV (which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and which was actually supposed to be released in 2005), and White Jazz. State of Play, which had Brad Pitt and Edward Norton mere weeks away from filming in November 2007, was a hair's breadth away from being abandoned after Pitt jumped ship. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 07:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 07:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since the last time this was brought to AfD. Has a reliable source verified that principal photography has begun? Nope. So should this project have an article? Nope. Cliff smith ^talk 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF, since there is no reliable evidence principal photography has begun. As an aside, that was the most verbose and well stated deletion reason I've read in a long time. Perhaps it should be saved as an essay supporting the NFF guideline? gnfnrf (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to save the article but after about 5 pages of Google hits, there's no news that principal photography has begun, in fact production isn't scheduled to start until sometime in 2009. raven1977 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a rule called the crystal ball. You can't make a page for something that doesn't exist yet, even if you get notable coverage of it in reliable third party sources. Dream Focus (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I got a better version of this article saved in a workspace since the last AfD and will proudly bring it to mainspace when it can be happily sourced. Nothing is lost. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's thorough argument. I would recommend a possible mention at Nelson Mandela#Cinema. The article can be recreated if filming begins, which makes it more of a guaranteed event for which there will be substantial coverage (production, reception, themes) as opposed to messy negotiations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me... and any who have suggestions for improvement to the "article in process but on hold", feel free to speak up on the talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 18 October 2008 (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.