Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prom (2020 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 merge to Draft:The Prom (2020 film). Since the merge target is in draftspace, this is effectively a "draftify" result and the mainspace page will be deleted after I copy the expanded content to the draft page. RL0919 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prom (2020 film)[edit]

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

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

Completely fails WP:NFF. Filming is not due to begin until the winter time which is months away. The article does not have an extensive production history as it was only announced to be happening today, so it doesn’t merit mainspace status yet. This is why I created Draft:The Prom (2020 film). To build it out of mainspace until it begins filming. Until then however it fails the necessary criteria. I wouldn’t be opposed to it being merged into the draft and remaining in draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the page increased its source count but ultimately are just saying the same thing to cite the same information. It’s a bit excessive as well. Rusted AutoParts 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral My interpretation from some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) is that if a film meets WP:GNG then it's presumed notable and WP:NFF, as a subject-specific notability guideline, can't override the policy that is WP:GNG. (If you think I'm misinterpreting, let me know). This subject meets WP:GNG, despite all coverage being extremely recent. There's enough verifiable information to form a useful stub. Trying to incubate the content as a section in Ryan Murphy or something would be awkward, IMO. (And incubating it in draft space would be a disservice to readers looking for information about the film now.) Colin M (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film does not meet GNG. It’s only just been announced. The entire thing could get scrapped between now and December. That’s why the caveat at NFF is that a project should be filming. The Marvel movies develop within the draftspace until they start filming despite having a lot of coverage due to their immense popularity. But again, there’s no guarantees to the films actual go ahead until cameras roll. And The Prom Just does not even have the notability safety net the Marvel movies would have, even now when it’s only just been announced today that they plan to make this movie. It would only be a disservice to the reader if the film is actually filming. But for now they can easily look it up on IMDB or other sites. We should not assume it’s going to occur until it actually occurs. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it doesn't meet GNG? The first reference from the article looks to me like significant coverage in a reliable source. Colin M (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a detailed source or multiple sources in one day doesn’t equate to a significant coverage. All those sources are just repeating the same information. Look at Akira (2021 film) (another article in the mainspace I feel is too soon). Look at the detail in it. The Prom has nowhere near that detail to even have consideration for an exception. One day of coverage doesn’t cut it. I’ll offer more examples, look at what happened to Mouse Guard or Blood Meridian. Two pretty high profiles projects that got shut down before filming began. If it can happen to those two it can happen to any film so it’s really only common sense to err on the side of caution. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm seeing where you're coming from. My initial thought was that even if the project were cancelled tomorrow, it would still be notable, and it would be worthwhile to have an article on the failed production. But on further consideration, if that happened, it would probably make more sense to describe it in The Prom (musical), as happened with the Blood Meridian adaptation you mentioned, which is now described at Blood Meridian#Attempted film adaptations. Another factor is that I realized the coverage is based on some kind of 'inside source' rather than any official announcement. That said, I'm still not particularly enthusiastic about deleting/draftifying for the reasons mentioned above (I think the current content is useful to readers, and still think it meets GNG), so I've changed my !vote to 'neutral' for now. Colin M (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Last year I removed more than 40 films that were announced but never made within five years at List of Walt Disney Pictures films and another user recently removed another 100+ announced films that had not been confirmed to be in production, many of which even had cast signed on. While this isn't Disney and this announcement seems pretty comprehensive, this is obviously premature for an article and should only be at The_Prom_(musical)#Film for now. Duplicative coverage of the announcement in the Hollywood media is NEWS to me and does not establish notability yet, and content can be preserved in the musical article while the crystal ball is glowing. Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s already in the draftspace. I would move to if anything have the two merged or something in the draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so delete/merge with the current draft. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into draft space for reasons mentioned above. NathanielTheBold (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, obviously without prejudice against moving it back into mainspace if and when it finally clears the notability bar for films. The test for films is not "as soon as it's been announced as entering the production pipeline" — our actual rule is that no film should ever have a Wikipedia article before principal photography has started, and even then it still usually has to be an extremely high-profile film (e.g. a new entry in the Star Wars, Star Trek or Marvel franchises) that gets a lot more ongoing production coverage than the norm, with the vast majority of films still confined to the "not until we can properly source that a confirmed release date has been set" test. And, in fact, not all films that enter the production pipeline ever actually come out the end as finished films — sometimes even films that have started photography still collapse, or get delayed for years by production problems, or end up so bad that no distributor even wants to touch them anymore, which is precisely why even the photography phase isn't in and of itself an automatic inclusion freebie for every film. In all likelihood, this will qualify for an article sometime in 2020 when its release is imminent, but just because casting of a few lead roles has been announced isn't in and of itself enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this may be an exception to convention. Even if cancelled that alone would generate reams of media and many rounds of explanations. This is about as high-profile as a film ever gets pre-everything. Top streaming service, top movie studio, top producer, A-list celebs, some of the most high-profiles for each of their fields and generations. Already better sourced than one would expect. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just incorrect. There is not enough history or sources for the project to warrant a potential cancellation exemption, nor an exemption to convention until it starts filming. Rusted AutoParts 18:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to simply disagree on this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but considering you've only been around for four months I get the reason why'd you'd think this is good enough to remain. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not nice. In their four months, Gleeanon409 has contributed a huge quantity of high-quality contributions over the course of ~1,500 edits. They've also created over a dozen mainspace articles, none of which has been deleted, so I think they do know a thing or two about notability. And even if they didn't have a high edit count, dismissing someone's opinion simply because they're new(ish?) to the project is rude and doesn't advance the discussion. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d think I was being rude but that wasn’t the intent. I said that cause that’s how I felt once upon a time. I had a few articles I created get put up for deletion that I felt strongly about keeping. But I just gradually developed an understanding that films regardless of coverage can just fall apart. That’s all, no malicious intent was meant. Rusted AutoParts 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: messed up the initial ping. Just replying to your above comment. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the stub (which has since been expanded by other editors as well), and sorry if that conflicts with a draft page created the same day. I acknowledge and respect the opinions shared above, but I'd rather just see the article kept for expansion as additional details are confirmed. I understand some other editors take a very strict approach only keeping articles about films in production, but if the page is just going to be recreated in a couple months, then let's just keep and move on... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be expanded in draftspace until it films, which is why I put it there in the first place. Anything can happen in the next six months. So it’s not wise to keep it in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to keep in main space, IMO. You've made your points known, no need to reply to so many comments above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it’s important to me to contest the points. It doesn’t make sense to keep it in mainspace on two fronts:premature cause of the filming and premature cause of it only being announced yesterday. The mainspace article can easily be merged with the draft, be kept in draftspace than moved into mainspace once the filming begins. But it’s not wise to keep it in mainspace so early. Rusted AutoParts 21:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace and then create a redirect here to The Prom (musical)#Film, per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to draftspace I am not convinced that this film should be exempted from WP:NFF. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to draftspace Agreed. Obviously notable - the question here is timing.MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2019 (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.