Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Dead

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 Merge and redirect to George A. Romero. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 11:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Dead[edit]

Diamond Dead is essentially a failed production that does not warrant its own article. The official site and the IMDb entry for the film have been rendered defunct, and there is zero sign that this project will ever see actual production. The article was prodded for deletion, but it was removed on the grounds that it caused "considerable controversy" without ever being produced. A Google search for "diamond dead" romero yields only 642 sites (not excluding junk sites). A more reliable Google news search with the same keywords only yields 49 headlines. The existing headlines fail to note multiple, significant coverages about the project's controversy. The project attempt is worth mentioning at George A. Romero with cited announcements like this, but there is too little coverage to warrant an article on an unmade film like this. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if it does need a mention, they can add a note at the Romero page. NobutoraTakeda 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
Keep I don't know about anyone else, but I think a film that managed to get 49 news stories without ever being released is quite notable. JulesH 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the results, there are not 49 independent news stories providing significant coverage of the film -- two Washington Post headlines are actually listed redundantly a few times (due to different databases), and other headlines do not provide explicit detail about the project -- for example, "Names in the news" mentions the rumor of Marilyn Manson as Jesus as part of a list and not as the sole focus of an article. I would suggest looking through the headlines more closely to understand that there has not really been much coverage about this production other than "Romero is planning to do this film" (and considering his background, it's not surprising that someone would want to report his upcoming project back in 2004) and "Marilyn Manson might be Jesus in this film". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George A. Romero. Might not be notable enough for a standalone project, but if he was planning to do it at one point, the failed production is notable enough to be mentioned in his bio. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Failed projects can be notable, and this one seems to qualify, but there's not enough information right now to justify a standalone article. Propaniac 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for several reasons. Many scrapped media have their own articles. See The Fantastic Four (film), Socks the Cat Rocks the Hill, Night Skies, etc. Also, we don't know for certain this is scrapped. Romero is working on other projects like Diary of the Dead. I recall the controversy over the film, and tried to post the link to the main site protesting it, but it was blacklisted. It also couldn't easily be merged into the Romero article. There's too much info and the infobox should be retained. Tim Long 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse to keep this article. The examples you mentioned may very well warrant investigation for merging or deletion. In addition, it's illogical to keep an article on the off-chance that a film will be made, especially if there is no evidence suggesting that it will be made. If anything, the removal of the official site and the IMDb entry makes production of this project look bleak. Lastly, this article hardly has any cited information to warrant a fully developed article, so per WP:CFORK, it's better housed elsewhere, such as the director article. Of course, there's no prejudice against recreation if it can cited that actual production will take place on it. There's not even certainty if the Infobox Film template's information is correct -- it's usually taken from IMDb, and with the IMDb entry gone, it's impossible to tell if the existing information hasn't been altered since. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's notable as part of the information about Romero, but not as a standalone topic. -- Whpq 21:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of deleting it, just redirect it to George A. Romero. Then we can expand it if the project goes ahead. Tim Long 17:41, 20 July 2007 (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.