Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira (2021 film) (2nd nomination)

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. There is no clear consensus between keep or merge, but a clear consensus against deletion. As such the AfD will be closed and discussion about whether or not to merge and where to merge to can continue in its proper venue, i.e. on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (2021 film)

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

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

Two months ago when I first nominated this article for deletion, it was in part because of the fact it was two months early in regards to its filming start. The decision was to keep based on GNG. As of today, the film had once again been delayed indefinitely. It will be suggested that it meets the GNG which I’ll disagree with because the details around its production history just don’t bolster it well. Projects like Blood Meridian have had long stretches of planned production with ultimately no result and they don’t have a standalone article for that. The editors on the Marvel Cinematic keep those articles out of a mainspace position until such a time it warrants being there. Akira’s production history isn’t in my opinion strong enough to remain in the mainspace. On the purposes of the film being delayed I propose it either be deleted, it’s content merged into the Akira (manga)/Akira (1988 film) article or it be merged into the Draft:Akira (2021 film) to be able to be fleshed out there until such a time it’s notable enough to exist in mainspace again. Rusted AutoParts 18:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the GNG is still met hasn't changed because of the delay. There is history of the attempts to bring a live action version of Akira to the screen, which is not going to change at this point. I would reasonably support a merge to a potential Akira (franchise) article given that at leas two new Akira projects have also been announced, but that needs to be created first. --Masem (t) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For sake of the fact the winds are blowing "merge", I have created Akira (franchise) which I would request that this article, give or take a few changes, can be history merged into. (I can do that after this has closed, but I cannot take premature action on until this is closed.) --Masem (t) 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, much information available on the effort to make this. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t mean the article can exist as it currently does. It’s been indefinitely delayed. Production of Akira (upcoming film) would make for a better title if anything Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case why not start a move discussion? AfD is not a cleanup request or merge discussion. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and start a move or merge discussion. Masum Reza^📞 08:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NFF, because to keep is to intentionally mislead readers into thinking a film will happen when this is not the case. A history of planning does not equate a tangible product. This is exactly what WP:NFF was written to address. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We have plenty of articles on projects that never came to pass, as long as there is sufficient notable content to explain the history and reasoning why it never happened. GNG overrides NFF in this case. If all we had for this film was its announcement earlier this year, the planned start of production, and this new delay, then I would fully agree but we have 6 years of documentable history (which this article doesn't fully spell out yet, but a good amount is in there) that is highly relevant. --Masem (t) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is the deceptive framing of this topic. Right now, Wikipedia is telling readers, hey, this is an upcoming film! We know that unless filming starts, anything can happen, like this production delay just did. There is zero telling when this will ever be filmed. Fine if there is sufficient content for a standalone article, but it shouldn't pretend to be about a film. It's history of planning for a possible film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that is easily fixed to be clear that its unclear if this will be made - I just changed the lede for that. The fact that it was just about to be produced is still a significant milestone. --Masem (t) 02:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made are further cementing my opinion that the article needs merging or repurposing. Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Akira (manga), the majority of the content is about the copyright, which can easily be merged to the work itself. Any of the other information are CRYSTAL at this early stage, not to mention the misleading title when this film is indefinitely postponed. Viztor (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Variety reports, "Warner Bros. has put its long-in-development 'Akira' adaptation on hold indefinitely, sources tell Variety." More reason not to pretend that a film is upcoming with a deceptive infobox and deceptive cast and crew credits as if a tangible product was going to happen with their involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hypothetical - what if a week of filming happened and then this happened? (keeping all factors of all the past events in development in place)? Do you merge back, going against NFF? This is why GNG is the guiding factor here, not a project-speicfic guideline. --Masem (t) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you merge back. I’ll use the example of Gore (film), the Gore Vidal movie that was all filmed and in post starring Kevin Spacey. Once the news about Spacey’a misconduct was revealed, it was cancelled, with post-production midway done. A deletion discussion resulted in the film being redirected, as it was no longer planned on being released. NFF is utilized for the very specific film side of things because they can get cancelled all the time. Mouse Guard is another example. All cast and everything and in the month before filming was supposed to start, cancelled. What is necessary about maintaining an entire article about a film that hasn’t happened/will never happen (depending the situation) when all that info could still be accessed at a subsection in a designated redirect location? There are specific situations where a production history is so detailed it’s fine or necessary to have it be it’s own separate article, see Production of Watchmen oder Production of Ben-Hur (1959 film). But this Akira film has nowhere near the same indepth production history. Rusted AutoParts 04:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can see merging short coverage - as both Gore and Mouse Guard had - into relevant articles (and to that, I think it was a mistake to draft Mouse Guard, since the book series article has plenty of room for all the details for the stalled production). Films that have been given sufficient news coverage are going to be valid search terms, so removing them out of mainspace is not appropriate. Now, yes, merging may be an option, but not given the size of either the manga or anime articles. Let's imaging this was merged to Akira (franchise). The only major change in that move would be stripping out the lede, infobox, and bottom matters - the rest of the text is 100% reuseable. Which begs the question, why can't it be an article if the bulk of the text is the same? If the complaint is that the lede implies the film is still happening, that's nowhere close to a valid reason to delete because that's fixable. This is the problem, you're holding NFF as if it were a hard-edge policy, which it is not - it is subservient to the GNG which is also only a guideline with grey areas. Again, I get the point of NFF to prevent films with practically no information from having its standalone article before production starts, but that's ignoring the importance of the GNG. As to whether we will need a "Production of Akira..." article at some point, I doubt it, but that has little to do with the GNG and more with SIZE concerns.
    - (Also, as I write this, I recognize and point out that AFD should not at all be used when content is expected to be merged. Even if this were merged, we'd still keep this article as a redirect as it is a valid search term, and there's nothing that needs to be deleted in terms of contributions). --Masem (t) 05:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Mouse Guard draft was always where the film article was located. I created it there to flesh the article out prior to filming, however since it was cancelled it wasn’t in a place where it was in violation of a guideline because it was generated first in a draftspace. “Films that have been given sufficient news coverage are going to be valid search terms, so removing them out of mainspace is not appropriate”, I feel you’re missing the point of NFF. It applies strongly here because it’s thw film wing of GNG bad what constitutes a notable film. And the core philosophy of NFF is that a film should have begun filming to satisfy the guideline. The current article as is is just info that can be gathered at any location. It’s not like a reader looking up the project can’t be redirected to a subsection of Akira (manga) or Akira (1988 film) when they type in Akira (2021 film) or (upcoming film) or (film project). The article’s production section starts with baseline information about the franchise, and the rest is stretched out information that would fit the production section of a film that did happen or did begin filming. There’s information in it about the creator mulling a television series not relevant to the film itself, No one is being done a disservice if the article is merged elsewhere. Rusted AutoParts 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for reasons mentioned above. While the film continues to no longer be in active development I don't see the utility of it having its own article. NathanielTheBold (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it's identity delayed doesn't prove that it's not notable. We do have notability criteria for films but that doesn't override GNG. Masum Reza^📞 08:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too soon to have a stand-alone article on this film which now seems likely to not be released in 2021. As noted above, the film-rights section would be better served in an article on the franchise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The rules are clear - unless principal photography has begun, the film article should not exist. - Richiekim (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NFF is not a rule and it is subservent to GNG in any case (As the last AFD suggested). A well documented effort to make a film that has yet to reach production, and even ultimately cancelled, is still something that can stand on its own in terms of a Wikipedia article. --Masem (t) 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? It is absolutely a rule. WP:Notability (films) is listed as a guideline. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines nor policy are rules (outside of things like BLP, COPYVIO, and NFC). They're meant to describe practice, not prescribe practice. --Masem (t) 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that metric, GNG shouldn't be followed then, as that's a policy. You say describe practice as if that's a negative thing. It is not. NFF and Notability (films) as a whole is the film specific sector for GNG when it comes to that topic. NFF is the metric used when determining hen a film is on the horizon qualifies for article status, and an important facet of that is if the project is filming. NFF should not be tossed out here just because you don't see it as important. Rusted AutoParts 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not policy either, its a guideline. That's why we use AFD to discuss within the framework of what notability is if an article should be deleted. In that framework, meeting the GNG is one way to show notability for any topic, whereas NFF is an alternate approach for films if the GNG is not met. I still totally agree with the idea that if all you can say about a film is that it has been greenlit, but no production has started, then yes, NFF is wholly applicable here (as well as the GNG) since there's not much to cover yet. But this case of a film in development hell may fail the NFF but meets the GNG, and as noted in the previous close, the GNG takes precedence here. But that's why we're at AFD to discuss it, its not "automatically fails NFF so delete". --Masem (t) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There has been instances when an unreleased film that hasn't begun filming has an article by satisfying WP:GNG. One that comes to mind is Marudhanayagam. In this case, there may be enough material for a standalone article. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2019 (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.