Talk:Paradise Lost (2013 film)

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 December 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Scott Derrickson project?

I was going to list this as a source for the article, but then I realized that it talks about Scott Derrickson being the director, rather than Proyas. I tried to do some digging to find about whether the director had changed and/or the projects got combined, which only turned up conflicting reports. Does anyone know what happened and have a reliable source? SweetNightmares (awaken) 18:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Okay, so I know this has just survived a AFD (albeit with strong support for redirect anyway), but as this film is now on hold [1][2], best to redirect until it actually enters production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a merger or something, don't delete the entire article. By the way, I would not say that 3 people is a show of "strong support for redirect." SweetNightmares (awaken) 03:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors suggested redirecting, with compelling arguments. That is fairly strong support against five editors opting for keeping the article, at least three of which based this on the fact that filming would start next month. As we now know that this will not be the case, this makes those arguments redundant. This is a good example of why WP:NFF is a good policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine since, like The Lone Ranger, it was put on hold after the article was created. So i'm ok with it being redircted for the time being. RAP (talk) 12:42 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Redirect the page at least till filming actually begins. It's funny how everyone was so sure it was going to start, then a few days after the AfD closes the production is put on hold. Again, this is the exact reason why we don't create articles on films that have yet to enter production and until those productions are themselves notable (as seen by significant coverage). What we have here are castings and potential filming dates. That's not notable and with filming being placed on hold we don't know if/when it will resume. Redirect till it officially starts. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I saw this discussed on another user's talk page that I watchlist).WP:NFF is extremely clear here--no article until principle shooting begins. Now that the movie is actually known to be on hold, having this as a stand-alone article is clearly not acceptable. NFF itself even points out that we shouldn't keep future film articles just because they have big names attached; this movie clearly demonstrates why concerns about who is acting, producing, or directing should have no impact on decisions about whether the movie should have a stand-alone article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I supported redirecting the page even before the film was put on hold, so naturally I still support redirecting it now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is ideal in this case. It is too soon for this film to have its own stand alone article. Of course, relevant content should be merged as well. BOVINEBOY2008 11:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything of note that this article features about the proposed film is featured on the Paradise Lost article. There is no reason for this page to exist. Like Paradise Lost (2012 film) before it, this should be turned into a redirect.--Krevans (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Robsinden, trimming the article and omitting large parts of information will not help your cause. I understand changing the verb tense, but could you please explain why you swept away much of the cast as well as the infobox? This article will obviously get redirected now anyway, so it seems asinine to remove such large parts of information on the premise of "per WP:THISthatORtheOTHERthing" SweetNightmares (awaken) 19:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a "cause", but the cast I removed was unsourced, and the infobox also largely unsourced. The infobox is redundant if the film is not being made - it mentions among other things a budget - well, that's the thing that has put production on stall - and a release year, which of course no-one now knows. If the article remains, these things can be discussed as part of the production process, but until details are finalised, then writers, producers, etc, even directors, can change. If you have a look at WP:MOSFP it also explains why the infobox is not suitable for films not yet underway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]