Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight Rises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Dark Knight Rises

[edit]

Closed per nominator's request. The result was keep. Jhenderson 777 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Rises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • redirect Although this film is highly likely to happen, i still think that this article should be userfied or redirected to another area, its too early for it to have its own page. Incubation would be fine as well. F.R Durant (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the article is treated not as a film but as instead as plans for one. While we have the notability guidelines for future films to start articles when films begin principal photography, it is my impression that the franchise momentum behind this project is tremendous enough that even the project's failure would be spectacular (and notable) enough to warrant its own article. Most projects canceled after development would fade into oblivion; this one would not. Worth noting that the article was incubated before, so if deletion is the consensus, the page can be moved back into incubation instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this is also worth mentioning, but Nolan is also the kind of director who tends to follow through with his commitments; most films he was attached to, he actually produced. (Although, he was to The Prisoner one time without any film coming of it.) Directors like Ridley Scott and Guillermo del Toro are "attached" to countless projects, and it's rarely clear what they will actually do. Nolan seems to pace himself well enough with his projects. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are exceptions to WP:NFF, just like every "rule" here. This article is one of them, for the reasons Erik pointed out. I'm not going to repeat it again. The article gets an insane amount of traffic, so obviously readers are wanting to know about this upcoming film and this article delivers that---while being clear that the project has not entered principal photography yet. Of course things and happen, people can die but being Wikipedia we have the tools to handle such events. Thank you. —Mike Allen 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with keep. Out of respect I must also advise you to keep the guidelines WP:Civil and WP:Bite in mind. OK! ;) Jhenderson 777 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Jhenderson. There's no reason whatsoever we can't speak like civilized people. It doesn't take any effort and there's actually less typing involved if we don't insult people.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't insult anyone. But thank you, Wikipedia Superheroes! Geeky Randy (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it its a confirmed movie by the directors not just speculation or nothing 24.185.84.37 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article meets the notability guidelines, has valid sources for all it's information, and not has far too much information to be merged back into the Batman in film article.--Little Jimmy (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh.... redirect although obviously the tide is headed elsewhere. Notable, sourced content is inevitably shoe-horned in with rumours and crystal-balling in this type of page; thus the inevitable page protection over and over again. When the film is released, the content of the page will be entirely different, so I don't see much value in the current version. The amount of traffic a page gets is a classic bad reason for an AFD vote, keep or otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would page protection not help prevent rumors? In addition, the article is pretty closely monitored by a group of editors, so the rumors are kept in check. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can report properly referenced discussion about this project, and we keep the content to what is verifiable. If filming takes place, the pre-filming content will stay mostly stable, while I'm sure we will need to update the details of filming. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. As long as whatever is in the article is properly sourced per policy, protection would help prevent improper editing from editors who insert their own opinions rather than rely on reliable sources and what they offer. That a page gets attention from inexperienced editors is a reason to keep an eye on it, not delete it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So someone may add a rumor is a reason to delete it? This is article is watched by many editors. "I don't see much value in the current version". You may not, but 691,331 other people do. —Mike Allen 03:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another "lots of traffic" argument that won't fly. No, occasional vandalism and unsourced content is not itself a reason for deletion. But talking about the future inevitably involves speculation. Hairhorn (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why policy specifically addresses that issue, not insisting on truth... only that whatever speculation is reported in reliable sources be identified as speculative and be well and properly attributed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dark_Knight_Rises&oldid=1183366867"