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. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing an incomplete nomination by User:81.104.170.167, should now be complete. No position yet from me. Daniel Olsen 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To finish the job: Pure speculation. References cited include IMDB, which happily tells you that *they* aren't sure about it either (yes, IMDB is not a reliable source this far away from the target date), and an interview with Spielberg in which the project is mentioned in passing towards the end. Film is supposedly due in 2009, not that this is confirmed anywhere useful. We can be almost certain that the US will have a new president by then, and almost certain that the memory of the Olympics in Beijing will be fading from our minds. We can't say the same about a film, no matter who's running the show. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Geogre's Fourth Law - the absence of an article does not make something bad. It can come back once we have some solid information, which is something we don't have. 81.104.170.167 07:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I uncovered a citation mentioning Interstellar (see article) from October 25, 2006 that's independent of IMDb and the SpielbergFilms.com interview, the Wikipedia article's two initial citations. This may reflect that the film is not too speculative in nature. Otherwise, however, there do not seem to be any other follow-up sources that are independent of those already included in the article. I find it a tough call to determine the validity of this article, since Spielberg is a very noted director. Is it reasonable to take into consideration whether a director has consistently followed through with announced projects in his/her Hollywood history? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we're still too far off completion for their record to be relevant. If Spielberg made a passing reference to some project he has conceived for 2012, 2015, or even 2020, would not be grounds to start an encyclopaedia article based on it. The Variety "article" (more of a sidebar to me) is about someone being promoted, and again makes only passing reference to it. All we seem to know at this point is that the project exists, and our baseline is verifiability, not truth. IMDB isn't reliable this far away, and SpielbergFilms.com is nothing more than a fansite. Variety may indeed be a reliable source, but to suggest that this project needs an article right now purely on the basis of a throwaway comment at the end of a sidebar piece is pushing the policy just a little too far. 81.104.170.167 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC
PS - this isn't final. Having the article deleted now does not mean that it can never come back - when there's enough information available to actually write an article about it, then one can be written. Remember, AfD is about the article, not the topic. 81.104.170.167 08:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, SpielbergFilms.com is a fansite that can absolutely count as a reliable source. The site takes itself seriously, and the interview with Spielberg is a primary source. Furthermore, you've tried to downplay the interview by saying that Spielberg mentioned Interstellar in passing, when he actually gave reasonable detail about it for a film in development -- who is the brain, who is directing, who is producing, who is scripting, and how he doesn't want to compare it to 2001. This isn't a project that's faded into obscurity -- the Variety article I cited in my initial comment above shows that it's still live, despite the "sidebar" nature. In addition, since lack of references was one of your arguments, I found this Varietyarticle from June 2006 that announces the yet-unnamed project (obviously Interstellar). It's been edited into the film article to flesh it out further. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure Spielberg is taking his sweet time, but he's making it. Or else delete Indiana Jones IV as well. Wiki-newbie 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewing the crystal ball policy, Interstellar is not "unverifiable speculation" as reflected by the newly added citations (see my comment above). Furthermore, this film can be considered of "sufficiently wide interest" to merit an article being that Spielberg is one of Hollywood's most notable directors. The same couldn't be said of a film under a first-time director. Also, reviewing notability on unreleased films, Interstellar is certainly not just "expected to be made", as the October 2006 citation reflects that it is a live project at a production company. In addition, the June 2006 citation reflects that the project would self-admittedly spend "several years" in development, so it's a matter of arguing the interest in a Spielberg film and the recency of production news, both of which I've explained here. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking over the policy link Erik provided, this is verifiable and of sufficiently wide interest. SpielbergFilms' interview at the Chicago International Film Festival seems credible, and IGN [1], Dark Horizons [2], Cinescape [3] and BBC [4] based stories on it. Showing multilingual interest, there's articles on German [5], Dutch [6], Spanish [7][8], French [9] and Italian movie news sites [10] also based on SpielbergFilms' interview. And IGN [11] and RottenTomatoes [12] based news stories on the Variety article. I think this is a small, verifiable article of sufficient interest which would undoubtably grow. Balsa10 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is support and interest in the article. It clearly states it is for a "scheduled or expected film" and is therefore not misleading. In addition to the supportive comments above I cannot see any benefit in deleting this article. In my opinion a stub being here will encourage more frequent updates (keeping the article accurate and relevant), especially by newbies who may feel nervous about starting a full article from scratch but feel confident enough to add a line here and there. GQsm 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The attention it has received means it doesn't meet WP:NOT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article in Variety[13] suggests that Paramount have acknowledged its existence. --Sonance 18:36, 1 November 2006 (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.