Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond 24

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 James Bond in film#Future. Stifle (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bond 24

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:MOVIE. There is little more than gossip so far, with very little from the producers. The same situation happened with the Bond 23 AfD, until the official release of the name. SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As per Betty Logan and Robsinden, I would happily support a re-direct to James Bond in film#Future. A re-direct to the James Bond in film page was also what happened before the release of the Skyfall name, again as per WP:NFF, when there was as much, if not more, media coverage of the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Bond 23 (as it was then) had no confirmed information and was written seven years before release. Bond 24 has been scheduled for a 2015 release and has plenty of confirmed info from the producers themselves as well as other reputable sources. Isn't this far from similar? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get why every time an article on a future article pops up on namespace, someone has to cite WP:NFF or WP:CRYSTAL. Especially for cases like this, we should be looking at this policy instead. We do not have to stick to same old policy every time and each AfD discussion has its own merits and warrants its own results. Since SchroCat has cited Bond 23, let's talk Bond 23. This diff shows how it was in 2008, four years before release. Does it look anything like what Bond 24 is like now? Put it short and sweet, merging/redirecting/deleting this does the project more harm than good. Hence my !vote choice. Thank you, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect was also used on the Skyfall page prior to the release of the film's name. I fail to see how redirecting to another article "does the project more harm than good". The James Bond in film#Future section holds the same reliable information as this page. The only additional information this page holds is from the gossip mills and rumour mongers. WP:NFF is there specifically to stop the inclusion of such nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Bond Project discssions. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject films discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official details have been officially revealed by Eon, so it's not really "hype". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll also add that Bond 24 is misleading: there are twenty five Bond films in existence, so by one measure this is Bond 26. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the media refers it to. Not many laypeople actually recognise those two non-Eon ones. So these is the official "Bond 24". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just stick to discussing the notability of the article for now. Regardless of the fact that "Bond 24" is not actually the 24th Bond film, it will still be perceived and reported as the next film, and once there is sufficient content for the article presumably that will be its WP:COMMONNAME until it is moved to the permanent title. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bond in film#Bond 24 and future. It clearly fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun, and at the moment it is just a series of announcements by Eon Productions. Point #5 of WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Until we can offer encyclopedic coverage of the production i.e. write about things that have happened as opposed to things that will happen the content should be merged into the series article, and the page redirected to the appropriate section of that article. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is DYK-worthy at more than 1500 chars. long, have you noticed? This article is not just a collection of rumours... We have confirmed news from Eon, the official production company. What has happened? Daniel Craig has been casted, that's what. A release date in the UK and the US has been set. This provides the typical Wikipedia reader a lot of knowledge about Bond 24. Do you think he will benefit more if this were to be redirected? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of which points are covered in James Bond in film#Bond 24 and future, which doesn't include the unfounded gossip (Cruz rumours) and assumptions (Fiennes and Wishaw) that this page has.- SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about the budget, the US release date, the part about Bond 24 being a two-parter initially? You should rightfully admit that this article offers at least twice more than what the proposed merge target has. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation should not be included in either article, and anything that is confirmed by the producers can—and should—be added to the series article. Content can be determined on its own particular merits and is incidental to this discussion. Our guidelines say announcements may warrant coverage, but do not warrant an article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements do warrant an article in some instances... Given the overwhelming media coverage for Bond 24, why not? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no way a reader's understanding of Bond 24 will increase by merging the content. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this clearly meets WP:GNG. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no way a reader's understanding of Bond 24 will increase by the stand alone article at this stage, apart from the additional gossip element and assumptions. Have you got sources for Wishaw, Harris or Fiennes? Have you got an official source that confirms Cruz or the $100 million budget? (Given the profit from Skyfall, which was made on $150-200 million, it seems unlikely that they would cut the budget to $100 million. Any reliable source for it being US produced, or for the Devil May Care title? - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a film in the pre-production stage generates encylopedic coverage aside from regular publicity announcments then that would be one reason to invoke an exception. Maybe one famous instance of this would be the "search for Scarlett" when casting Gone with the Wind which became a huge news story in its own right i.e. the story would still have been notable regardless of whether the film was actually made or not. The key question here, is if the film were cancelled would the article in its current form survive an AfD? I don't think it would, because it is just a series of announcements that can be adequately covered by the main series article. A reader's understanding of the topic certainly wouldn't be undermined by merging the content since it would still be there; likewise I don't see how an article consisting entirely of announcements "improves the encyclopedia" either. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't like to say that this will happen, but c'mon, it's Bond! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same Bond series that was put on hold in 2010 and nearly didn't come back? Or the same Bond series that was on hold for six years after Licence to Kill, despite an on-going desire to work on a new film? - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But did it not happen after all? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Things like budget and release date are highly subject to change. Most of the rest is a rundown of rumours and announcements, many of which have been rescinded - Sam Mendes won't direct! Oh wait yes he will! It might be a two-parter! But it probably won't! We should wait until we have facts, and not report speculation. And claiming it should be kept because it's 1500 characters long is ridiculous when most of those characters are contradicting each other. If you cut out the untruths it'd be much much shorter. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't take a crystal ball to know this movie will be made. It's just a matter of time before more details emerge. I think Bonkers The Clown makes a better argument. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts NJLiz. Can you outline on which policy you are basing your thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess like others have pointed out, I'd mention WP:GNG. Newjerseyliz (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the clown. Lots of information announced, however unfinal, makes for an article meeting WP:GNG. I'd also be inclined to cite WP:IAR because of the subject, but I don't think such drastic measures are necessary. Ansh6 6 6 21:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Bond in film#Future, as this fails WP:NFF but guideline states "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With this much concrete information (eg release dates etc), this is now a tangible project that has crossed over from WP:CRYSTAL territory. I don't think there is any doubt this is a notable project. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had exactly the same information at this stage of Skyfall (director, release date and precious little else) and still managed not to start an article until the name was released. The Bond 24 name is misleading and so unencyclopaedic that it's embarrassing that it's even a subject under discussion. As per the same situation we had at this stage with Skyfall, a redirect to James Bond in film#Future covers the non-gossip aspects of the film. I'm staggered to think that WP:NFF is left unconsidered here: it's there for exactly this situation and it's one that we stick to consistently. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep mentioning Skyfall? There are many other cases in which then-unreleased films were kept. Every article has its own merits. I personally have considered NFF, but note that NFF is a secondary guideline and immense GNG is enough to swamp that. See also: WP:FFEXCEPTIONS ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF are here is to avoid creating articles on films that never see the light of day. And there are plenty of those. There is little doubt that this film, part of a highly anticipated and popular franchise, is going to happen, and shooting will commence in a few months, so I don't see the problem. Exactly like HP6, where the article has existed properly since July 2005 whilst principal photography only began on 24 September 2007; similarly, HP7A has existed properly since 2007 whilst principal photography only began on 19 February 2009. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, after at least the titles, plots and majority of the cast were known? Potter was part of an ongoing story arc closely modelled on the stories; Bond 26 is a stand alone story where all that is known is director, release date and 2 cast members. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I note this. It's WP:CANVASSING and I don't want to see it again: I will not hesitate to take further action if I see you trying to pull that stunt again. Secondly, the reason for mentioning Skyfall is that it is a parallel case. At about the same time in the film's development we kept all the information on the James Bond in film page until the film's name was released. We certainly did not plaster up a page of gossip on a misleadingly titled page. If you look at the reliably sourced and known information on the Bond 24 page, there is nothing additional to the James Bond in film#Future section. The problem with a standalone article is that it attracts fluff and gossip - as can be seen from the number of tags which had to be inserted here (let alone the amount of information that had already been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only canvassing when the request is posted on numerous talk pages. Moreover, I don't seem to be on the losing end in this discussion, am I? I asked MichaelQSchmidt to pitch in because he's a regular at AfD and an experienced editor. I've never asked him to !vote keep, just asked for his opinion on this, simple as that. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: canvassing can be on limited pages. I am not on the losing end either: this is not a vote, it's supposed to come to a consensus based on policy and guidelines, not just vote counting. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Way too early to have an article on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's scheduled for a 2015 release... When will "early" become not so? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When principal photography starts, as per WP:NFF. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James Bond in film#Future, as clearly fails WP:NFF. An encyclopaedia should be based on established facts, not fanzine gossip and Chinese whispers. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the notability guidelines for future films. There is hardly a wealth of information here that would warrant splitting into a stand-alone article, especially for a film that may or may not be produced. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NFF in WP:MOVIE: production has not begun, and there isn't even a title, not to mention lack of reliable sources on two of a very short list of four cast members. The "DYK-worthy" argument above doesn't hold water, since it's too short for DYK as it is (and even shorter given extensive duplication between intro and body), and articles that might otherwise pass DYK do fail for notability reasons, either through deletion or merger—DYK should not be cited in AfD arguments, as DYK depends on AfD to help determine notability in questionable cases. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 9 August 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.