Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Airbender

The Last Airbender

The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NFF, this article should not exist until filming begins. Many films have been cancelled in pre-production. Suitable coverage about the planned film trilogy is already avaliable at Avatar: The Last Airbender. Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Boldly reverting back to the older edit that was a redirect to the coverage in the parent article. No need for an AFD when a simple redirect will do. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Dylan0513 (talk · contribs) wants an article although I've linked the guideline to him twice now so let's see some justification and consensus. As explained to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (film), we'll have to see this through. I myself personally concur to a merge. Alientraveller (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Apologies if I acted with a bit too much haste. In that case, I vote to merge into parent article.. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur that to merge seems to be the best course of action. Ngorongoro (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, Alientraveler, you think this is hurting me somehow? I don't really care what happens to the article. There's no point in deleting it, it will just be made again in 3 months when production starts. This article should not be up for deletion and you are taking a person grudge, which I don't even know why you have, into the Wikipedia process. Discuss this matter on the Avatar: The Last Airbender talk page, "The Last Airbender" has no reason to be up for deletion. It should be a redirect. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. And it's good to hear you concur to a merge too. Alientraveller (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A merge as long as this article still is a redirect. And don't do this again with the AFD, you are creating more work for the administrators when a merge discussion would have sufficed. -Dylan0513 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Avatar: The Last Airbender#Feature film per the notability guidelines for future films; the section is completely appropriate to host such information about a possible film. There is no guarantee that production will begin. No prejudice against a stand-alone article if it is verified that filming of this project, announced nearly two years ago, has begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as per Erik. Hewinsj (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as per Erik. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Can't we wait until March and see if it has been delayed or not? I think that that usually signifies if the movie is headed for director's hell. All that is going to happen is that someone will click the undo button in March sometime. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think we tend to err on the side of caution. Even if a project is based on a high-profile franchise, the project is not guaranteed to begin production right away, if at all. Examples include Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4, Justice League of America, etc. WP:NFF works because if a planned film is in a section of the broader article, then it shows that the film is not quite guaranteed. When there is a stand-alone article, editors may believe that the film will happen. I've seen AFDs where editors reference the presence of the article itself to say, "This film is going to happen." Redirecting downplays the topic... a film being planned is not at all like a film that has a Plot section, Cast section, Production section, Themes section, Reception section, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're already starting to write the 2nd movie of the trilogy, not that it makes a difference to the policy. -Dylan0513 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as there seems to be more than enough significant coverage over the last couple years per the general notability guidelines to qualify under WP:NFF: Slash Film, First Showing, Film School Rejects, Mania.com, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, All Headline News, Movie Web, Empire Online, Ain't It Cool, Collider, io9.com, M. Night fans, Coming Soon, et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• It hasn't started filming, though, so it does not qualify under WP:NFF. Look at something like The Voyage of the Dawn Treader#Future film adaptation -- Disney jumping ship casts a very pessimistic outlook on that particular project ever becoming a film, even though I'm sure you can find a lot of coverage like you did above due to the fan base. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to parent article. Even films that seem a lock for going ahead fall apart before filming begins. Budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues and scheduling issues often get in the way. Just look at those that Erik cites; Jurassic Park IV was originally intended for release in 2005. Early reports for The Last Airbender suggested a 2009 release; there's nothing to stop its being put back again, or cancelled altogether. In addition, there isn't a great deal of information available for this film yet, so surely it's better off for the readers if it gets put in the parent article, where it can be taken in the correct context. Steve ^{T • C} 22:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)