Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Look Up (2021 film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. I can undelete the history if the draft gets promoted to mainspace Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Look Up (2021 film)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Don't Look Up (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Filming has not begun, per WP:NFF it is too soon for a stand alone article, subject already has a draft at Draft:Don't Look Up (2021 film) BOVINEBOY2008 09:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There’s already a draft article for this film and its way more fleshed out then this, which shouldn’t be in the mainspace to begin with seeing as the film isn’t in production yet. I say delete. TheMovieGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8870:AAB0:284F:3CB6:1750:783C (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unique content into existing draft per above. When/if the film meets guidelines, it can be published.   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While we can be sympathetic to a new(er) editors not knowing to check drafts there is an issue that I don't see any "unique content" that can be merged. @Hidden Hills Editor: and ReaderofthePack: Read the current draft and see if there is not reasoning to agree with TheMovieGuy that it is "way more fleshed out then this". I might have missed something but what specifically could be "merged" that is not in the draft? If there is just one or two references then just add them to the current draft (anybody can edit it) since it does seem it is "too early into production to create a page". A close to duplicate title, with nothing new to offer, does not seem to be productive. Besides, this article was created 2020-10-22 with 9 editors and the draft 2019-11-19 with 17 editors (30 days). The draft title including (upcoming film) might be more appropriate if production starts or other acceptable criteria for allowing creation. Don't Look Up (2021 film) might be wrong if the film is not started this year. It would seem this could set a precedent that an editor could create an article over draft and be credited as the creator when that would not actually be true. Why punish the creator of the draft (and those that worked on it) by allowing the possibility that if the criteria was met for creation (pre- or production was started), an editor could just move his or her version back to article space, while the draft editor is still awaiting acceptance. That draft would then be declined and deleted as a duplicate. That is a can of worms I don't wish to open so I have to side with "Delete" Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otr500: Would merging the two history wise mitigate this concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @TheSandDoctor: I will state I am not against any solution that might retain any editorial history as an alternate to outright deletion. As an editor that works in WP:AFC I see too much material that I don't think suited for an encyclopedia and rejoice when I can promote one to article space. I am happy when I leave comments that are dealt with that results in someone else accepting the draft. I also enjoy finding a draft where a new editor is involved in attempting to implement improvements (interaction like answering concerns) to a draft to facilitate publishing. What I hope never to see is some precedence that could possibly hinder what appears to be the original creator, waiting in line in a backlog for possible creation, being undermined because someone else can publish the article "first".
Surely that would not be an arguable concern from anyone so I think the original creation date important in cases like this. I would think stifling the creative motives of one editor, by allowing a "jumping of the gun" (by accident or not), would not be beneficial in the short or long run. In this case, and considering the draft or article is just not ready for publication but will likely be notable ("when/if filming comes about"), I think this author might also agree and possible join the draft in attempts to get it published when the criterion has been met. I choose to have a lot of faith in Admins that I feel are continuing to strive for encyclopedia improvements. I will accept any decision that addresses what I deem as highly important concerns as well as those of others with valid concerns. Two Admins are now weighing in so I feel I can "go away" in peace (smile). Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (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/Don%27t_Look_Up_(2021_film)&oldid=987160069"