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. Phaedriel - 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dune (Jodorowsky film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Theres nothing in this article that hasnt already been covered by the original Dune (film) article, the only notable difference between the two articles is a section called "Jodorowsky on the Script", which was copy pasted from a website. Kessingler 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete- advertising ChrisLamb 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it reads like an advertisement and the info in this is already covered in another article. I see no real reason to keep this.--†Sir James Paul† 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and link to the website at the main Dune (film) article. JJL 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You mean redirect it to the main article?:)--†Sir James Paul† 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, I meant add this external link [1] at Dune (film). JJL 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dune (film) per nom. NeoFreak 03:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. OysterGuitarst 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as more than the contracted director's comments are necessary to demonstrate the notability of an unproduced film. (Given it doesn't exist, I'm not sure how valid it is to label it "advertising".) Maybe this could be transwikied to Wikiquote and linked to that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and excise most of the info from Dune (film) article. I think this was an incomplete attempt to split out a somewhat divergent part of the already-large Dune article, and I rather prefer it as a separate entity. TAnthony 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the "film" itself is notable because of not only the notability of the novel, but those involved in the "production" and its notability in Hollywood at the time. Plus, A film doesn't necessarily have to me made to be notable. That said, I guess I'm not sold on the fact that this needs its own article. TAnthony 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources would make it extremely difficult for the article to be written to begin with, the only real source for it is Jodorowsky himself, and thats extremely POV to begin with. According to him, Star Wars and Alien owe much to the unfinished project (no one else but him states so), never the less the pre-production of Star Wars began as early as 1973 (Jodorowsky started his project in 1975) and all the designs in Alien were specially made for the movie, no prior design from Dune was used. The only one who states that the production was notable in Hollywood was Jodorowsky himself (or more accurately the article in question). The project looks huge, i mean Pink Floyd, Orson Welles, Giger, Salvador Dali, big script, big budget, etc. But it never passed from pre-production status, most of the people involved didnt even worked in the project because it was shut down before they did, only in theory they were in the project, Pink Floyd didnt even made a jingle for the Dune movie. What is written right now is already covered in the Dune article, because theres nothing more to it. This article is nothing but triying to advertise, to give greater importance to an unfinished project (and unifinished is in caps in this project) so that it can be part of the geeky Dune mythos.Kessingler 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dune (film) - an argument could be made for merging, but whats there and the link should cover it sufficiently. Artw 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly some of this material should also go to Alejandro Jodorowsky as well, particularly regarding material he later incorporated into his comics. Artw 06:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is already covered in more succinct detail at Dune (film). Does not need to go in depth about what could've been. Also, why wasn't this prodded first? The lack of page history indicates that it probably would've been removed without going through the AfD process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i believe this argument is enough to delete the page. Why wasnt it prodded first?, because i had no idea of it of course.Kessingler 09:29, 28 June 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.