Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashes to Ashes (2010 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes to Ashes (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to Keep: Per ~~WP:CRYSTAL~~ Improvements. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Joe Chill said above. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per continued coverage in reliable sources since 1996, allowing this as one of those that do meet WP:NFF per coverage meeting WP:GNG... specially as it now moves toward filming. Even with its postponements and it being CRYSTAL, the continuued coverage [1], [2], affirms notability, and allows it to merit an article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As User:MichaelQSchmidt said above.Managerarc (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions of people planning to make a film at some point in the future is not significant coverage and we don't predict the future. The fact that the film has had mentions since 1996 and yet no film has emerged says it all. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by prediction? Enough evidence is available that the film is planned to be released sometime next year so we can give it a chance.Managerarc (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it hasn't started shooting, and no source says it has started shooting. That is the bar that needs to be met, once film is rolling and a date is fixed then it can have an article, but TBA 2010 and no evidence of any actual filming means it will have to wait. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... but not all the coverage since 1996 has been brief, as this is a pet project of Hawn, she has many times spoken of it at length, and it has been covered for years. Even projects stuck in production hell can be notable for that coverage of production hell. The bar that must be met to qualify for inclusion is set by WP:GNG, as a topic may be seen as notable if it has coverage in reliable sources... which this one does. Not surprisingly, and not asserting WP:INHERITED, the involvement of two notables has understandably kept that coverage alive. Perhaps a proper and temporary merge of the informations to the Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell might even be worth considering... but the coverage is of the film... sometimes in relation to or because of the principles, but not solely of the principles themselves. In this case, a keep and allow expansion and inprovement through regular editing can improve Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you concede that not one single frame of film has been shot for this "film" (which at the moment is just a script), so then all information in this article is already on Hawn's page and this should be a redirect at most, but fails NFF. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concede? My argument is toward the topic of the article meeting WP:GNG, upon which guideline WP:NF and its section WP:NFF rely. The film might never be made... but its the continued coverage in reliable sources over a 13 year period that grants notability to the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article is incorrectly named, it should be "Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn pet project with no specified release date nor idea when production will begin)". Because a sparse number of references to a script is not a film. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that all available sources are "sparse", as many of the more recent ones speak specifically about the film and its pre-production. I do think expanding a "Background" section to include its history could be a terrific addition. There are many articles with Ashes to Ashes as part of their title, so perhaps Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film) might work... with a namechange that includes the date when filming commences. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a film, is it? Without a frame of celluloid it is just a script and an intention to become a film. And all the details can be easily housed on Hawn's page, then spun back out once it actually starts shooting. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Incubate or userfy for continued work per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per sufficient references in news stories over the years. Yes, some of them were not "significant coverage," and in totality it's a judgment call whether this topic meets notability requirements. Can I !vote "no consensus in my own mind"? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Neutral per mix of sufficient ongoing references plus lack of financing = uncertain future. Unlike topics that will not increase in notability over time, we can delete and have the closing admin specify delete without requiring a DRV if and when an article is created that clearly establishes notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some form of incubation or userfication is also acceptable by me. Then again, so are keep and delete, as it's too grey to call. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going with the letter of WP:NFF, which says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. … Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." Accounting4Taste:talk 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one scrolls up the page from that subsection, one will see that WP:NFF is part of WP:NF which states "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline." And WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.", from which one can see that if any topic meets the GNG it can be assessed notable... no matter if a planned film or a book or an event or a person. Its the coverage that matters, not the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unless there are much better references than those in the current article, this is not one of the cases appropriate for an exception. One of the refs says that it has not yet been financed. The other two are the barest mentions of an film about which nothing but the name of the stars and the production company is known. The rule was intended to prevent just this sort of article. It might be appropriate to mention it in the article on Goldie Hawn, sourced to the interview she gave that mentioned it as her current project. I'm not sure a redirect even is warranted at this point. The phrase I usually use to describe the situation, is "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC) see below DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

So let's incubate the thing so that it might be appropriately rewritten, expanded, and sourced to show its coverage since 1996... or if no one is willing to even consider that option, have it userfied to me and I'll do it myself... specialy since Goldie is currently in India. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy.~~Keep. Per new sources Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm currently working on a complete re-write more suitable for incubation... one that better reflects the history of this unmade film: Ashes to Ashes (Goldie Hawn film project). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a few sources to the article to better define its coverage over 13 years. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well referenced article now. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator This article has gone through significant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[3] Ikip (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... lack of sources actually IN the article was a continued concern... and one not too difficult to address. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised by MQS. Several of us said that if it were notable, there would be references--and so there are. My earlier comment was based only upon what there was in the article, and someone who looked further found what is often found by doing that. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant media coverage of anything makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think this meets the mark. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:25, 30 November 2009 (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.