Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them#Film adaptation. —Darkwind (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

edit
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Shooting has yet to start. I was gonna redirect, but I see attempts at that have been reverted. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been in the press - I can't find the paper for the moment, but I read about it in yesterday's Metro (UK). It'll probably be notable even if the project goes legs up. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per above, the Harry Potter franchise is so enormous that I think this will get a lot of coverage, such that even if it doesn't go through there will be enough information for an informative and culturally relevant article. In other words, I think this project, through its connection to the HP universe, defies the notability guideline as it is a topic of social importance and applicability regardless of whether or not a final product comes out of it. That said, I'm no expert in film or the film branch of the wiki, so I'm going to withhold my vote for now. ~ Boomur [talk] 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We've reached a point, given the enormous scale of the Potter franchise, that this is definitely notable. Either as a film, or as a mass suicide of heartbroken fans. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are pretty clear that this is a done deal and the fact that its even being talked about is notable because JKR had said that she was going to be done unless the script and story were good, and of course this is her first screen play attempt.--JOJ Hutton 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now to J.K. Rowling without prejudice for later undeletion or recreation. I have absolutely no doubt that due to the screenwriter and public expectations this topic will doubtless be phenomenally notable in a few months. But for now, under policy, guideline, and essay we can write of it at the target without that target being overwhelmed. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Development of ..." 122.172.157.215 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Development of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" or something similar. Due to its connection to the Harry Potter series, it seems clear that this is notable, and would probably stay that way even if it was cancelled for some reason. While it was only just announced, it seems likely that it will be in the press a lot more up until the time that it comes out (if nothing else, there will probably be a lot of speculation in the press, as there has been already for Star Wars Episode VII, for example). Alphius (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them for now. The "Development of..." articles actually seem to be for films that have been in development for years. And while I'm still sure this will warrant its own article soon enough, I suppose it's fair to say that pretty much all of the coverage right now is only based on the press release, and that, thus, this probably doesn't need its own article yet. Alphius (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date". It also goes on to state that "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". As very little is known at this stage, there is no justification for an exception, and a breakout article is not warranted. We don't even know if this will be the title of the film anyway. Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". As this amounts to little more than reports on a press release, then we should be following this policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief - this is one of the most popular franchises right now and has eleventy billion people googling it as a result of the news that the film is coming out. It makes sense for Wikipedia to provide a suitable article. It makes sense not to have speculative articles about things that are only getting minor coverage from fan websites, but this is getting plenty of mainstream news coverage. --B (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the news coverage is a reaction to a single press release. Anything outside of the press release is speculative. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't opine one way or the other on whether or not that is the case, even speculation can be notable. The topic has received overwhelming media coverage. Even if that media coverage is speculation, that doesn't change anything. --B (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Overwhelming media coverage" of one single fact - that J.K. Rowling is working on a screenplay based around a book. This is everything we know, which is not enough to warrant a standalone article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm starting to think a redirect might be the best choice; Schmidt brings up a good point. So long as the section on the article about the book is expanded somewhat to include some of the relevant information/quotations from this article, I think a redirect might be the best choice — till shooting has begun, at least. Still not voting quite yet, though. ~ Boomur [☎] 02:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a redirect per WP:NFF, but information is currently in three different places, including also Harry Potter (film series)#Future. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While related, the story-line of the book does predate the timeline of Harry by 70 years. And I think we can speak about it in multiple locations, but as Rowling’s screenwriting debut, and planned as the first movie in a new series, a temporary redirect to either author or the fictional literary work falls in line with how we've done such in the past. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:24, 18 September 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(film)&oldid=1137843228"