Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Tron: Legacy Sequel

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. There is a consensus that there is not (yet) enough firm encyclopaedic information available for this to be a viable stand-alone article. While there was support for merging it was correctly noted that this wasn't really necessary as all the information was already in the Tron: Legacy article. Therefore as the title is not useful as a redirect I'm closing this as delete rather than merge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Tron: Legacy Sequel[edit]

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

Hasn't yet started filming. Per WP:FILMS criteria, articles should be deleted if they haven't started the filming stage. Suggest userfication or maybe merge to Tron: Legacy. — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the studio hasn't even confirmed it's making the movie yet. The article doesn't really need to be merged; it appears to be the two paragraphs from Tron: Legacy#Sequel copy-pasted as a production section, and then an enormous cast list that includes a ton of actors who don't seem to actually have anything to do with a Tron sequel. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, There are many other films which is in early stages but have articles. The criteria is general notability which can be deduced from coverage and coverage has shown strong interest. There have been some recent incidents in other Tron-related media which has made heightened media coverage. Pass a Method talk 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet in production. I'd say redirect, but I already have a redirect called Tron 3. Plus, half the info submitted is false.Rusted AutoParts 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete at this point. Without any reliable sources, nothing can really be confirmed quite yet, unfortunately. Reading at Tron: Legacy, it does not appear it has left the script phase. Recreate article once something is more solid. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The if kept or restored at a later date, the title should be Untitled Tron: Legacy sequel in lowercase per WP:MoS. jhsounds (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as a topic meeting WP:GNG or, at minimum, Incubate as being so imminent. From its coverage over 4 years, we can easily see that the topic of an anticipated 3rd Tron film exceeds the requisites for coverage as set by the primary notability guideline. As WP:NFF cautions that unmade films should generally not have their own articles, what we need do here is decide whether or not the extensive and persistent coverage of this topic merits it as areasonable exception to that SNG. The project has been in planning since 2009,[1] and was confirmed at the screening of the Tron: Uprising promo trailer at 2011 Comicon, Bruce Boxleitner stated plans for a sequel film was "a done deal" and that it could be in theaters as early as 2013.[2][3][4][5] Yes, he was wrong about the date... but through 2012 there was a great deal of continued independent coverage on planned cast and proposed plot.[6] Into 2013, the media continues to seek information as the plans firm up... And note: less than a week ago we learn that a finished script is imminent. While the topic of a 3rd Tron film can always be discussed in the various Tron articles, we have enough information to allow this topic its own article... one which will be edited and improved over time and through regular editing as more information finds its way into the press. It is not policy to disallow articles which speak toward planned projects. WP:CRYSTAL does NOT state we cannot have a forward looking article... it simply advises that editors must avoid original research, and through its stating "In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified (unsourced) claims", requiring editors to properly source anything in such articles. We are less concerned about the truth of what a reliable source might report than we are that it has been reported in a reliable source. Period. A cogent point is that IF the project were announced today as cancelled, we'd still have an acceptable level of notability established through 4 years of coverage. The key here, as with any article, is topic notability is established through WP:SIGCOV of that topic. I think it serves the project and those readers seeking such information for us to allow in this instance and carefully maintain a properly neutral and encyclopedic article on this highly anticipated film. There is no demand for immediate perfection, just so long as we work toward that goal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The film is untitled, its plot undetermined; with little real information, the article's primary purpose seems to be promotional. Miniapolis 12:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but when one reads the policy you cite, one can see that WP:CRYSTAL does not forbid forward looking articles, and instead rather instructs editors in being careful in how they present forward-looking information. And as we neutrally report what is offered in reliable sources elsewhere, and as long we do not ourselves create an unsourced speculation or unduly hype a topic, WP:NOTPROMOTION is not a worry. That internal and external coverage of a topic is incomplete, and can be improved over time as more information comes forward, calls for editorial attention, and not deletion of a topic that has met the primary notability guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MQS. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Tron: Legacy#Sequel. If you remove all the unreferenced and speculative info in this article there is little here that expands upon the information already at Tron: Legacy#Sequel. Actually a merge is not really required as the initial article is mostly a direct copy and paste, without the required attributions required per WP:CWW, of the Tron: Legacy#Sequel section in the first place. What was added was the infobox, summarizing lede and a cast list derived from IMDb. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Tron: Legacy#Sequel or even Tron (franchise)#Films per the notability guidelines for future films since filming has not begun and is not guaranteed to. The topic is not notable on its own; news coverage exists solely because of the Tron franchise, which is why my aforementioned links are good targets for merging. If this was a no-name, no-franchise production, we would think twice before having a stand-alone article. In addition, this topic is inherently unstable in its very own lack of notability. If the film is never made, then coverage (bloated here) is readily relegated to an overview article. That capability means that this is not a rooted topic, and it is too premature to plant it as stand-alone on Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To refer to another guideline, WP:NOT#NEWS states that Wikipedia articles are not news reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The key word here is "enduring", and here we just have a compilation of transient news coverage about plans to create the topical work. Not to mention that per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works," and this topic is nowhere near that approach (hence the recurring concern about promotional tone with such premature articles). Per WP:CRYSTAL, coverage can indeed be included in some capacity, and that capacity is the umbrella of the related franchise. Of course we cannot create a stand-alone article just because a famous director signs on to a project. Of course that film would be notable if it did get made, but there is no guarantee of that. Such events like signing on and scriptwriting do not lend themselves to topics of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:NOTNEWS cautions us to avoid dependence on recent news blurbs in creating articles and it is the appiclable guideline which explains, just as you have above, that it is through enduring and persistent coverage that we weigh the merits for inclusion under WP:GNG and WP:NF to decide if such enduring and persistent coverage brings us an reasonable exception to the SNG WP:NFF. As there is not yet a finished film, we are not dealing with a work of fiction but rather are discussing ongoing production plans just as per policy specifically instructing "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". We have significant coverage of these plans from as early as 2009 (4 years of media attention is not exactly transient news) and as the topic is "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", we can definitely discuss this planned somewhere. I have no issue with it being discussed within related articles as suggested above, but if not "kept" [Remember The Hobbit (film project)?] an incubation of the article takes the topic it out of mainspace and yet still allows interested editors involving themselves in collaborative and ongoing regular editing as more information comes forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, you're arguing for a historical article related to a topic that may not even be. None of the news coverage lend itself to "the enduring notability" of a film because there is not one. All the news coverage is forward-looking; this encyclopedia cannot do that because it is essentially overshooting and declaring the existence of a film for all time when someone is just writing words on paper. WP:CRYSTAL is also contradictory for our purposes. If there is excitement about a director signing onto a project, the passage "sufficiently wide interest [to] merit an article if the event had already occurred" contradicts with, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." A famous director's signing-on would certainly mean the film will be notable if it is produced, but in the film industry, such an action does not make the film "almost certain to take place". WP:CRYSTAL is also not straightforward about the structure of such content. The consensus is that we can include coverage; it is not straightforward about the form it should take in an encyclopedia. The fact that this topic is transient, meaning that if no new developments ever occurred from hereon, then we have no real topic or article that can truly stand alone. The general notability guidelines are too broad to fully account for the niche of films, which is why the notability guidelines for future films adequately addresses including such coverage in a stable manner.

The default ought to be one-way growth; a headline for a possible film appears because of some already-notable element (famous director, studio acquiring rights for popular literature), and a summary is inserted under that element's article. If nothing happens, we've adequately recorded a slice of history in the appropriate spot. If something tangible, the film itself emerges, then we can expect a stand-alone article with much more coverage, especially Wikipedia's policy regarding fiction: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works." What we have here is just bloat that has minimal encyclopedic value if no film is ever made. Forward-looking news coverage cannot sustain a stand-alone article, but it is flexible enough to fold into broader articles. A situation like the development history of The Hobbit was essentially an exceptional sub-article based on the level of detail involved. We do not have that here at all; the content is easily relegated elsewhere until we can sight a topic of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to The Hobbit (planned film) was only a reminder of an earlier discussion that allowed that exceptions to WP:NFF are allowed, nothing more. If consensus here allows this topic to be written of, it will be.

And let us be clear, as it does not yet exist I am NOT arguing about a "film" or about a "work of fiction", but rather instead about a topic of planning which has been discussed in independent sources since 2009. Policy tells us "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur." We do not report a future event as happened, only as something planned and discussed in sources. So I bow to policy and it specifically allowing discussion about a proposed future project. No film is "certain" (unless filming is confirmed... and even then there could be setbacks) until it actually hits theaters. It does not matter if a topic ever happens or not... coverage is the key for inclusion. Let's just decide where to best speak of it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:43, 17 April 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.