Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-Men: Days of Future Past

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Days of Future Past

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

This article is about a film that hasn't even started principle production yet. Lady Lotus (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is well written and referenced, the production is planned to commence in the near future. So why delete it, and then recreate it only three months later. Star Trek Into Darkness is a good example of an article created before production started. B-watchmework (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It bothers me why someone would want to delete an article about an upcoming film when its about to enter principle production in more or less 8 weeks especially the article is well-sourced and there's already been a lot of confirmation and official information about the movie like the release date, the title of the movie, director and the cast. Instead of suggesting on deleting articles, why don't you help improve the article especially if its get deleted today, it will be just recreated in the next few weeks or months. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your reasoning is invalid. If you were to say this, why not delete the 2020 Summer Olympics. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 04:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I disagree that the reasoning is flawed. WP:NFF has been a long-standing guideline over at WikiProject film, as all sorts of things can delay and completely derail even "sure-thing" productions. But I think this is a case where the WP:GNG are clearly met, with significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources over an extended period of time. Even if the film never enters production, the project itself and its cancellation would still be notable (which is not always the case, hence the future film guideline) -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While WP:NFF is set to prevent premature articles on planned films, we always need acknowledge WP:GNG's instruction on how in-depth and persistent coverage of a topic gives us suitable topic notability... and how even NFF instructs that such persistent and in-depth coverage of a film's planning can make the topic notable even if unmade. And more, policy itself tells us that future events may indeed be written of within these pages, if properly sourced. THIS topic merits being one of those acceptable exceptions to the cautions of WP:NFF. We've had such exceptions before, and will again. This is one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film enters principal photography in a couple of weeks with no signs of any derailment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.227.166 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We know this is a film that is due to start, it has been announced, it has been cast and frankly (to use a double negative) it ain't gonna not happen Hammersfan (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is strong information for this film and it has been announced. HereFord 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realise this article may be pushing wikipedia's guidelines a bit but this film has recieved extensive coverarage and is definatly notable enough to have an article. SayPeanuts (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I'd say this is a snowball keep right now. NickCochrane (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Per WP:NFF, this would be a fairly unambiguous ~~Delete~~, but given the large amount of press surrounding the topic, as well as the fact the principal photography is only a month or so away, I am compelled to override bureacracy and advocate leaving the article as and where it is. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 3 March 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.