Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader[edit]

Principal Photography haven't started yet Kikkokalabud (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep with prejudice against renomination. Is this a joke? This is a major motion picture, part of a highly ~~successful~~ notable series of films based on a highly ~~successful~~ notable series of books. Per [[Category:Upcoming_films]][1], this certainly qualifies within the "Category for films that are not released as of yet, but are factually planned to be filmed/released in the near future".--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While not official policy, contributors to this AfD debate may find it valuable to refer to the WikiProject Films page regarding Future Films.-Markeer 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Chronicles_of_Narnia_(film_series) As per the guidence for films that haven't begun shooting (link above) this is all a bit premature at the moment. We should not let ourselves be used for advertising. We are an encyclopedia and much of the information is making predictions as to what will happen, that sort of thing shouldn't be here. However, a redirect should probably sort this out because it seems fairly certain that as this is such a big film it will eventually be notable, even if it ends up not being made and then the redirect can be changed back to an article. Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At WP:NFF, it says, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." So, lawyerly adherence to that would delete this article. However...
That threshold will be met in weeks rather than months, and millions have already been spent. We're not lawyers here. Furthermore, considering the contracts, monies and effort already expended... even if the project fails at this point, the project is still article-worthy (WP:NFF also says, "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable" [emph added]).--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If redirection is the best option, it should be redirected to The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. No opinion on keeping/redirection, but don't delete. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the film series page per Polargeo. There is coverage of the film's existence when Disney dropped the franchise, but there doesn't seem to be enough current info to have a separate page for the film at this time. Eventually, sure. Just not yet. SpikeJones (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the film has not begun being filmed, it has been confirmed. The article should not be deleted unless it has been completely cancelled, which it hasn't. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the pertinent notability guideline (WP:MOVIE) does say that films should not have their own articles until shooting starts. Until then, info about it should be in the film series page as suggested above. Cliff smith ^talk 02:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with dab to the book, and the film series article, until it's no longer a WP:CBALL, when an article can be reestablished. 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I don't like having articles about future films, but this one is pretty well established as happening. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I too agree this is an exception, as there is enough information about the planning. The section on the plot & proposed cast should be worded much less positively, until it is seen what is actually in the finished work. DGG (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This movie is confirmed and is definitely notable. I see no reason in deleting just because a certain sequence of the movie (principal photography) haven't started. The format and content of the article is well written. Recreating the article later is just meaningless and will lose the content of the article we have now. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a major confirmed film with many sources and an excellent "Production" section. Not crystal. American Eagle (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Ezratrumpet (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether principal photography has started or not, much has been written about this film in the press, especially regarding the transfer of production rights from Disney, thus satisfying the GNG, which overrides NFF. Powers ^T 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards merge with The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) until shooting has started. I mean, Spider-Man 4 has been in the press for some time as well. Cliff smith ^talk 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect to The Chronicles of Narnia (film series) until filming begins. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An exception to the usual guidelines about principal photography starting because it is already well sourced. Enough sources for the planned film to meetWP:N even if the film never gets released. Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 2 July 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.