Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecstasy (2008 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 Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance per WP:NFF. While this film seems to have garnered some notability, it does not yet assert sufficient significance to stand alone. Assertions below that the film has started photography are unverified. Merging retains the information, which can be split as appropriate when this project demonstrably meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy (2008 film)

Per WP:NFF. Official blog confirms it has not started shooting yet; even the IMDb doesn't seem to list it at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CRYSTAL Beeblbrox (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)After reading the following remarks and reconsidering, Merge seems the best way to deal with this Beeblbrox (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance. JJL (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable here. This future film has recieved substantial coverage in reliable sources as shown by the references section of the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't matter if it hasn't started shooting yet. It is confirmed and was the subject of secondary independent sources, the prime criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Once again Wikipedia:Gaming the system is occurring whereas one clause of one guideline (WP:NFF) is pitted against a contradictory guideline (WP:NOTABILITY). --Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to Merge to Ecstasy: Three Tales of Chemical Romance, per the nom's comments below. Good points. If there is more up-to-date confirmation of shooting beginning soon, then I'd be inclined to have the article recreated. --Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been confirmed by reliable sources. The fact that IMDb doesn't have it yet doesn't really mean anything - existence of a page doesn't confer notability, so it can be inferred that non-existence does not mean it's non-notable. While more sources would be useful, they are sure to come when shooting begins, and it has (just) enough in the meantime to remain. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first of all, holding off on the personal attacks would be appreciated. If you want to see the history and reasoning behind NFF, you are welcome to do so on the guideline's talk page - it was a consensus decision and resulted in the creation of a department at WP Films to both improve appropriate future film articles and delete or merge inappropriate ones. The IMDb lack of linkage is in particular notable because IMDb usually is the one to "jump the gun", so to speak, and add entries for films which are so much as mentioned in passing in industry trade magazines, and it appears that while they did originally have an entry (see the bottom of the infobox), the link no longer works. Looking up the director also shows no mention of the film. As for the notable sources, a quick perusal shows that the film has been supposedly "about to shoot" for two and a half years. This is precisely the why behind the creation of WP:NFF - because a great percentage of films get stuck in what is termed "development hell". Since the financial commitments increase vastly upon the start of the shoot, it tends to be a "point of no return" for a future film, which is why we use that as the standard for articles. I'm not as familiar with some of the cases, but I'm certain that the active editors at FUTFILM can cite a handful of films within the last year even which were weeks away from shooting only to go back into turnaround and never be heard of again. The guideline is not intended to prevent the information from appearing on Wikipedia, but rather to keep it centralized around the source material (in this case the book) until it becomes more or less certain that a split to create a film article is necessary. This actually creates less administrative work in the long run if the film never happens, while also keeping the source material's page comprehensive for the meantime. Thank you for your time, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed, examples include those affected by the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike (the high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram). Or (unrelated to the strike) those which are seemingly stuck in perpetual development (Jurassic Park IV, Fahrenheit 451, Logan's Run). Steve ^{T • C} 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per the notability guidelines for future films. This is keeping in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, which permits verifiable coverage but also meets the threshold of WP:NFF since a project that has not begun filming is not guaranteed to actually do so and have a full-fledged article in time. No prejudice against recreation if the article can verifiably show that filming has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after any useful information has been merged into main article. As per my own comments and examples above. Steve ^{T • C} 15:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what's crystal about it? from wp:crystal: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." the project does exist, and whatever has or has not occurred on the project is at least partially discussed in the article. --emerson7 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It hasn't been nominated under WP:CRYSTAL; it's been nominated under the notability guideline for future films, which stipulates that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, and this has been accepted as the best 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 not be assumed that because a film is likely to be a significant release that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. As I mentioned above, these include the high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, and Shantaram among many others. See also Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, and was actually supposed to be released in 2005. We don't even have a separate article for the upcoming Hobbit film yet (note that production of that has been pushed back another year too). The Fahrenheit 451 and Logan's Run remakes are another couple of examples of films seemingly in perpetual development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Until then, there is no reason for the article to exist. I know it must be galling for someone who has put so much work into an article, but there's nothing to stop copying over any useful content to the article on the source material, or creating it in your userspace until production begins (if indeed it ever does). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This film has started production of special effects in Toronto. 16:53, 5 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.55.16 (talk) — 76.67.55.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Production in what sense? Previz? Also, what citations can you offer? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This film Ecstasy has started Principal Photography on the special effects shots in Toronto, ON. 13:08, 6 March 2008 (Robheydon (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Can you provide proof of this? Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 20:10, 7 March 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.