Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlander: The Source
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 was keep mainly due to the lack of arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Highlander: The Source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
This is promotional material for a film which has not yet been released. No verifiable NPOV information is available because the only information available is of a promotional nature. As such, the article can't be made to adhere to Wikipedia standards: it is simply advertising, and should thus be deleted. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-13 17:10Z
- Keep this is a film which is most certainly coming out. the wording may not be the best but is no reason to delete the article. also you need to sign your posts. thanks.--Tainter 16:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This is a film whose production has been completed, is part of a notable franchise and has notable cast and crew, and is likely to be (relatively) notable upon release. Just because the film has promotional material does not warrant it for deletion; there are citations like IGN out there. Reduce the article to a stub if there is information that is uncited and unhelpful, and the film's release will ensure coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You refer to IMDB as a source for saying that the film has been completed. Yet you have also said, "IMDb, in my experience, does not qualify as accurate when it comes to upcoming films," [1] and you have reverted other editors' contributions using that rationale. [2]
- IMDb has been shaky in reporting whether or not a film had entered pre-production or not, as well as peculiar additions to the cast list and defined release years where there has been no such thing. However, I've never had an issue with IMDb confirming whether a film had been completed or not. Besides, on the official site, you can see footage of the film, so it's not like the project never happened. Even if it's not "completed", work has definitely been done on it, which is more than I can say for some crystal balling film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You refer to IMDB as a source for saying that the film has been completed. Yet you have also said, "IMDb, in my experience, does not qualify as accurate when it comes to upcoming films," [1] and you have reverted other editors' contributions using that rationale. [2]
- Speedy Keep. Film is coming out this year. --Lmblackjack21 17:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Film is coming out this year. Even if that is correct (which there is no way to verify, as it has not yet happened), how is that a justification for keeping the article? This is not a rhetorical question. If a product has not yet been released, there is no way to verify anything about it. Any available information is based solely on press releases. Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to be a marketing venue? If so, then so, but it was my understanding that Wikipedia articles were not to be used for advertising. Are films an exception? -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-13 17:30Z
- Keep - The film has sources that seem to verify not only its existence but that it has started and finished production. I'm sure there is more information out there to be found, it just takes effort, and because a film requires effort shouldn't mean we should give up and delete it. I think the best venue would have been to address your concerns on the talk page, instead of going to AfD. Bignole 00:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did voice my concerns: the film has not been released, thus there is no subject for the article, thus the article is either fancruft or mere advertising, and should be deleted. There is no question of "improving" the article, because there is nothing to write an article about. That's my opinion. If it turns out that the Wikipedia community is fine with using articles as advertising for products which have not yet been released, then I will know not to recommend such articles for deletion in the future, and no harm will have been done. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-14 01:41Z
- I don't understand your opinion; are you suggesting that the creation of film articles should be held off until after the films' release, or are you suggesting that the article for Highlander: The Source was created for promotional purposes? For the former, I've found plenty of objective information for upcoming films (Spider-Man 3 is an extensive example). For the latter, there would usually be opinion in creating articles for films before they come out. That doesn't make their creations wrong; if the content of these articles are disputable, then the tone of the content can be adjusted for appropriate readability. Obviously, press releases try to make the film exciting, but it's a matter of boiling the information down to its essence to be objective and succinctly informative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I have not been clear. I am suggesting both. Wikipedia is ostensibly an encyclopedia, not a fan club home page, a tabloid, or a venue for press releases for "Coming Soon" attractions. At least, that's what I thought. I could be wrong. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-14 18:46Z
- There are many articles on topics on Wikipedia that wouldn't exist in your father's encyclopedia. For articles about upcoming films, I think adherance to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view helps preserve their integrity. There is information that does come out prior to release, and I think it's easier to build up information in bits by creating the film articles when production is underway. I mentioned Spider-Man 3 -- one of my favorite bits of information is how they used a congenital amputee boxer for the illusion of punching through the chest. I don't know if we would have been able to dig that up after the film's release, as there is a lot of nonsensical coverage of SM3. I don't think that Highlander: The Source was in good shape when you initially put it up for AfD, but honestly, part of my reason for the improvement afterward was to show you that it could be improved, even though I have little interest in seeing it. Information like the film originally having the title The Journey Continues isn't promotional; it leans more toward the encyclopedic purpose, even though the film is not going to be some kind of Schindler's List (maybe it will, but it's doubtful). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I have not been clear. I am suggesting both. Wikipedia is ostensibly an encyclopedia, not a fan club home page, a tabloid, or a venue for press releases for "Coming Soon" attractions. At least, that's what I thought. I could be wrong. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-14 18:46Z
- I don't understand your opinion; are you suggesting that the creation of film articles should be held off until after the films' release, or are you suggesting that the article for Highlander: The Source was created for promotional purposes? For the former, I've found plenty of objective information for upcoming films (Spider-Man 3 is an extensive example). For the latter, there would usually be opinion in creating articles for films before they come out. That doesn't make their creations wrong; if the content of these articles are disputable, then the tone of the content can be adjusted for appropriate readability. Obviously, press releases try to make the film exciting, but it's a matter of boiling the information down to its essence to be objective and succinctly informative. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did voice my concerns: the film has not been released, thus there is no subject for the article, thus the article is either fancruft or mere advertising, and should be deleted. There is no question of "improving" the article, because there is nothing to write an article about. That's my opinion. If it turns out that the Wikipedia community is fine with using articles as advertising for products which have not yet been released, then I will know not to recommend such articles for deletion in the future, and no harm will have been done. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-01-14 01:41Z
- Keep Appears to be verifiable and notable. —ShadowHalo 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The movie is done and in post-production. I do think the synopsis should be removed since that seems unverifiable. But the page itself should stay Spookyadler 09:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep There is even a link for the first few minutes of the film. Adrian Paul the star has a journal on his web site about his time while making the film as well, also it is mentioned on Thekla Reuten's web site. I agree the synopsis is not officially verifiable yet, but the page should stay, and the cast is verified. Ocnomad 13:09, 16 January 2007 (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.