Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Woody Allen TV series

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Woody Allen TV series

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

A month ago, there was a widely reported news story that Amazon has signed Woody Allen to create a new TV show. That's it. There is no name for the TV show. There is no date it will be released. There is no cast list. There is no notion of what it will be about.

As much as I love the original TV programs that Amazon has come up with and I'm on the edge of my seat for this Friday's release of the first season of Bosch, this is a news item, not an encyclopedia topic.

WP:NFF says that articles about future films should not be created until principal photography has begun. While this is a TV series, not a movie, that's still a pretty good guideline. This should be mentioned in Woody Allen's biography and maybe in an article about Amazon's original programming, but it does not warrant an encyclopedia article unless/until there is something more to say about it. B (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the television corollary to Hammer's Law. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Hammer's Law is only an essay, not a policy or guideline, I will note that very same essay singles out untitled aritcles based on "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or Facebook". That is far from the case here, where the information is coming from news outlets which are reliable sources. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we treat TV shows like films, which is not an entirely unreasonable approach, then WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." This show has not commenced principal photography, even for a pilot episode (to say the least, there's neither cast nor script yet!). If that's not satisfactory, but a TV show is considered a "product" (which is, broadly speaking, true), then WP:CRYSTAL says: "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Both are aspects of WP:NOT, and so are specific exceptions to the WP:GNG. And, indeed, the article about its creator already includes everything that needs to be said here, at Woody Allen#Future projects. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "If we treat TV shows like films..." I can stop you right there: we don't. I've already addressed this argument, but television-related articles are NOT subject to WP:NFF. I understand there are similarities between films and television shows, but they are ultimately two different mediums, and there is no guidelines for TV articles that says principal photography must have commenced. If you think there should be such a policy, you are free to proposed one at the WP:N talk page, or propose a modification to WP:NFF specifying that it be applied to TV shows as well. But that's not an appropriate discussion for an AFD discussion, and we can't depend on a film-related guidelines when it comes to deleting a TV-related article. (And I've already addressed WP:CRYSTAL so I won't repeat myself, but suffice it to say, the section of that guidelines you are citing (and indeed, all of WP:CRYSTAL, really) mostly seeks to prevent articles based on speculation and rumor, which is not the case here.) — Hun ter Ka hn 14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone doesn't agree with you and you that's evidence to you that they're disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Good grief. There isn't always a guideline that speaks exactly to what you're looking for ... but in this case, there's one that's pretty darned close - the films guideline - it makes sense to see what it has to say. --B (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you talking about? I don't recall accusing anybody of "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". I was just explaining that a guideline was being misapplied. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps this is examining semantics, but the definition of a file is: a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on television. WP:NFF is completely relevant. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the definition of a file", but assuming you meant to say "film", if you're trying to say that television shows and films are the same thing, I think you are flying in the face of common sense. The fact is WP:NFF clearly states it is the "notability guideline for film-related articles". It makes no mention of television, and television articles are not subject to it. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hold in great contempt articles titled "Untitled [Insert famous person] project". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and announced dates are not definite, even if they appear to be. How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a name for it. As we know that notability is not inherited, nor is it inherent. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a name for it?" The answer, per WP:N and WP:GNG, is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL for about the 498th time; wait until we at least have a plot, cast and airdate before posting details. Nate • (chatter) 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here in the least. That guideline refers to "unverifiable speculation", which is not the case here as this subject is clearly verifiable via reliable sources. The nominator also cites WP:NFF, which, as he points out himself, is about films, so it doesn't apply here either. If we're going to apply standards specifically for films to an article about an upcoming television series, what's to stop us from applying those standards to other forms of entertainment, such as an upcoming-but-unreleased novel like Go Set a Watchman? The real standard that this article has to meet is the general notability guideline, which specifies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article meets all of those standards, and should not be deleted. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And if the project turns out to be a vaporware project months down the line? We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it. Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep; we give the same scrutiny to every television pilot, whether it be Shonda Rhimes or a first-time writer and director. Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up; editors jump the gun and make it seem like a sure thing when it's hardly the case. And the near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted as black holes of speculation, and rightly so. Nate • (chatter) 06:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make lots of arguments here, so let me break down my response a bit: 1) "We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it." Can you point me to a specific guideline that says we need details about a television show's plot description or cast before an article can exist about it? I don't believe there is any such guideline. The guideline that has to be satisfied is WP:GNG. I've argued it has met that standard, and so far nobody has disputed that. 2) "And if the project turns out to be a vaporware project months down the line?" If that happens, we'll cross that bridge, but whether or not that happens is pure speculation on your part at this point. As you've pointed out yourself, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The question we have to ask now is whether this topic meets WP:GNG. It does. 3) "Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep." I never suggested that. 4) "Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up." That's a completely different case than this. Amazon has already ordered a full season of the series, as the article (which I assume you've read) indicates. It's not a question of whether it will be picked up. It already has been. 5) "The near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted." As I indicated in #4, this series has advanced further than most of the types of articles you suggest. But putting that aside, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid deletion argument. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment We have an announcement. That's all we have. We don't have a cast or plot summary. WP:TV doesn't tolerate this for the 60 or so pilots currently out waiting to be filmed and presented for the 2015-16 season and would delete an article for your average 'Untitled (some writer) project' immediately as a speedy. For instance How to Get Away With Murder was pretty much a lock from the moment Viola Davis was cast in it last year in February, but we still didn't establish the article until a day before ABC announced it, as is proper. We have no WP:DEADLINE for having an article here, and when a proper title and plot has been announced, then it can have an article; for now this should probably at most be redirected to the subject's article or Amazon Studios. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're just repeating the same arguments. Once again, there is no guideline that says a telvision series article is only notable if it has a cast or plot summary. You keep harping on that one, but the simple fact is, you can't point to a guideline to back up your argument, because there isn't one. Also, it's not a pilot, because a pilot is a trial episode made to attempt to sell a television series; this series has already been ordered by Amazon and is a done deal. That is what distinguishes it from "your average 'Untitled (some writer) project'". Your comparisons to How to Get Away With Murder are meaningless per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you wanted to play the comparison game, I could dig up just as many articles that started as "Unknown (name) project" that weren't deleted and ultimately evolved as more details became available; hell, even Irrational Man started as (you guessed it) Untitled Woody Allen Project (2015), and it wasn't deleted then, and everything turned out just fine. And finally, citing WP:DEADLINE only undermines your points, since that same essay makes the case that there is no need to rush to delete articles. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Go Set a Watchman, unlike the work we are discussing, has a title, a plot, and has been written. If the untitled Woody Allen series had those things, we likely wouldn't be here. --B (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I indicated above, there is no guideline that says specific elements of a TV series (plot, title, characters, etc.) are necessary before it can be made. The guideline for whether a topic is notable enough to warrant an article is WP:GNG. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The GNG is not a magic wand. Further down the same page, the notability guideline cautions against stand-alone articles "when information about a future event is scarce", which is certainly true here. It suggests, further, that "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". The announcement—despite that being made in several different entertainment outlets—that a famous person has been hired to make a TV show is not the same as that TV show being made. Even the GNG notes that topics can meet the checklist criteria and still be unsuitable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The specific section of GNG you are citing cautions against writing "permanent stubs" for "when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it". That is not the case here. Woody Allen is making this project. Amazon isn't simply considering a proposal, or holding brainstorming sessions about it, or holding contract negotiations with Allen. They've hired him, and it's happening. That means the likelihood that "there ever will be a lot to write about it" is extremely high, and the likelihood that it will stay a "permanent stub" are very low. This is a notable subject in its early stages, and the article will develop in time. There is no deadline, and we can afford to take our time in improving the article before rushing to delete it. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, there are plenty of shows about which you can say the show is going to be made ... until things change and it isn't. There could be creative differences and they mutually agree to cancel the project. He could make a pilot that doesn't get picked up. He could die. Amazon Studios could get spun off into a separate entity that decides they don't like the idea. At one point, there was going to be a Law & Order Cape Town. Everyone everywhere reported this as dead certain to happen. If you google it, there are still articles right now saying that it will be coming in 2012 with 12 episodes. This show was every bit as "guaranteed" to happen as Woody Allen's project. Until it wasn't. It just went away. I have no idea why id didn't get made. Right now, at this moment, there to say about this possible new TV show that cannot be said in a one-liner in Woody Allen or Amazon Studios. When that changes and we have something to say about it, it makes sense to have an article. --B (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Woody Allen could die, Amazon could dissolve, the Earth could explode, etc. etc. Any number of factors could occur, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's not appropriate for us to make those kind of guesses when establishing notability for an article. You simply follow WP:N and WP:GNG, and this article meets those standards. If later it turns out the show doesn't happen (which is unlikely), we can have a discussion about deleting or merging the article then, but it doesn't mean we should delete it now because of mere hypotheticals. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It is possible that the 2016 Summer Olympics might not happen. There might be a war, massive flood, or some other cataclysm preventing the Olympics from occurring. We still have the article, though, because we have lots of stuff to say about them. We can talk about the process of bidding for the venues, the financing, etc. Lots of stuff has happened already about which we can write an article. On the other hand, we do not yet have an article about the 2032 Summer Olympics because nothing has happened. It's a certainty that, barring some eschatological event, the 2032 Summer Olympic games will happen, but we have absolutely nothing to say about them beyond the fact of their existence. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing to say about the Woody Allen TV series beyond the fact of its existence. There are lots of news items that meet the general notability guideline, but about which an article is not appropriate. This is a news story - a deal has been struck to create a show. That's worthy of an article on WikiNews. It's worthy of mentioning in other relevant articles. But until we have something more than one piece of news, that's a news story - not an encyclopedia article. --B (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid deletion argument, so your "We don't have a 2032 Summer Olympics story" argument doesn't apply here. And likewise, your personal opinion that there isn't enough to write about this subject to warrant a story isn't a valid argument either, because we base those decisions on guidelines, not personal opinions. The article will eventually be expanded, but there is no deadline for when those changes have to occur, so the fact it's not being expanded right now isn't a reason to delete the article. And again, we can always revisit this later and bring up another AFD if the show falls through. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you find any example anywhere on Wikipedia of an article about Untitled future whatever where there is no information at all about the topic beyond plans for its existence? Maybe it isn't my opinion that is out of whack with the guidelines. --B (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure I could if I looked, but I don't have to. It would be really helpful if you read and tried to understand WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Comparisons to other articles are completely irrelevant in deletion debates. Adherence to guidelines are all that matters. — Hun ter Ka hn 01:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) It's insulting to assume that I either haven't read or don't understand the essay or the concept behind it. (2) You keep saying that, as though it's a license for an article to exist that is completely outside the bounds of our normal practices. (I find it slightly humorous, by the way, that you were the first one here to cite a comparison with another article - Go Set a Watchman - and now your main argument is that comparison with other topics for potential articles should be prohibited.) --B (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I insulted you, and fair enough point regarding my comparison to Go Set a Watchman (I didn't mean to compare the articles, I just used it as an example to show that a guideline for films can't be applied to other mediums), although that's hardly my "main argument". My main argument is that this article meets notability standards. — Hun ter Ka hn 12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You should look more closely at the general notability guideline. "Presumed" notable does not mean "it is notable". Specifically, the guideline says that "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not". This is a news item - nothing more - and Wikipedia is not news. Once there is something more than a piece of news, it makes sense to have a separate article. --B (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems we've reached a point where everybody is repeating the same arguments, which I'm not sure is productive anymore. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with you, and I still don't see the harm in erring on the side of caution and simply waiting a little while, then reopening a delete or merge discussion if it turns out this television series falls through (which some people in this discussion keep hypothesizing about and talk about as if its a near-certainty, even though in reality, the chances are quite remote). — Hun ter Ka hn 17:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break

Keep. One simply has to modify the search parameters to find additional sources, at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Was easily able to find thousands of sources in this manner. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody disputes that there are lots of places that reported the news item when the plans for the series were announced. Your "thousands of sources" are just reporting the same news item and not every news item warrants a separate article. --B (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I think there is room for, and value to, additional discussion as to the applicability of NFF to television shows, and that the determination of whether this meets whatever bar we end up with for future television shows is or isn't satisfied via the use of specific sources, rather than a Google link and a handwave. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRISTAL. It's absurd for this to exist, at least until it's got a name. Liam987 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. There seems to have been one bubble of news reporting around Jan 13, then every other news outlet rehashed the same bits and/or offered opinions about the television industry or Allen himself. Until there is an actual thing, not just a planned thing, we should not have an article on it. The deal can possibly be briefly mentioned at Woody Allen and/or Amazon Studios in line with WP:WEIGHT. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these new comments are repeating the same arguments already stated above, which I've already responded to. It seems to me this was relisted specifically do discuss the applicability of NFF to television shows, so should new comments focus on that? Maybe Joe Decker (talk · contribs) can clarify. (I personally think such a discussion belongs at WikiProject Television or the WP:NFF talk page, but that's just my opinion.) — Hun ter Ka hn 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone has brought up WP:NOTNEWS yet in this discussion. It's fine to discuss WP:NFF and its appropriateness, but that is not the only criterion. WP:NOTNEWS, a policy not a guideline, is certainly another valid point to consider: an excerpt While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. When there is substantial significant information about the show as an entity, not just speculation about what it may or may not be about, or the state of modern media, only then should we have an article. I can find lots of things that are in lots of newspapers that don't (yet or ever) merit an article: odd news, dumb criminals, and other water cooler news items, etc. I'm not saying this untitled, unwritten, yet-to-be program is on the same par as news of the weird, but until there is real substance to describe, what's the rush? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What's the rush" is the exact question I keep wondering about why people are so anxious to delete the article. In the extremely unlikely instance that the show doesn't go anywhere, we can resume a deletion discussion then. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't create articles about topics that we expect will become notable in the future. There is no "rush" to delete this article any more than there is a "rush" to delete any other article at AFD. --B (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the relist note: Until very recently, by the time the TV show was publicly announced, the pilot had already been produced and accepted. I'm not sure if NFF is necessary the perfect criteria for TV shows because a whole lot of pilots get filmed, but never actually get picked up. I'll use as an example, The IT Crowd. A US pilot was filmed. It never got picked up. We don't have and will never have an article on the US show that never was. This happens all the time - a pilot gets made, shopped around, nobody buys it, and we never even hear about it.

You might see a news item here or there that someone is pitching an idea or something, but generally, we don't hear about it until it's a done deal. That has changed a bit with the Amazon model of crowdsourcing their pilots. List of original programs distributed by Amazon#Pilots now has a long list of pilots that are or were available for anyone to watch and most of them have now been rejected and will never get turned into a show. All of them got media coverage when they came out. Very few of them have articles.

We have an article about The After, which was picked up by Amazon, and then, without explanation, cancelled prior to actually being filmed. We also have an article about The Man in the High Castle (TV series), which is one of the 2015 pilots and only just today got announced that it is going to be picked up for a full series. Both are leaps and bounds beyond the untitled Woody Allen series. Both of these have titles, have a plot, and have a pilot episode filmed (the Woody Allen series has none of these things). I'm definitely fine with having an article on The Man in the High Castle (TV series). I was fine even before today (until today, the show had not been picked up). There is tremendous media coverage about it that goes far beyond merely reporting the news that the show was planned. Even if Amazon were to say tomorrow, "we changed our mind", I'm still fine with this article existing because there's still a huge amount of media coverage on it. I'm probably okay with The After continuing to exist, even though that show is now not going to be made.

NFF, if strictly applied to TV shows, would probably permit an article about any TV show where a pilot has been made. That's probably too lenient because, as I said, lots of pilots get made, shopped around, and then never picked up. Probably a better standard is that there is a pilot and it has been accepted or there is media coverage that exceeds merely reporting the news about the existence of the pilot, in other words, it goes beyond routine coverage. But whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or coverage beyond the routine, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them. --B (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've actually made an excellent argument for why WP:NFF should not apply to television show articles. As you've said, it would probably be too lenient and allow for an article about any show where a pilot has been made, which would open the floodgates for tons of articles that don't warrant articles. However, this point is completely false: "Whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or coverage beyond the routine, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them." NFF, we've established, is a bad standard to apply. As for accepted pilot, the subject of this article is actually beyond that phase. It's not as if Woody Allen is shopping a pilot around to companies trying to get picked up; Amazon already has picked it up. As for WP:ROUTINE, I would argue it doesn't apply in this case. If you take that to mean any announcement in news coverage, I think that's an overly liberal interpretation that could apply to any number of notable subjects. The actual examples listed in the policy are things as "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events", "run-of-the-mill events", "wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs", "routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences" and light stories like "bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award". To me, it's clear the announcement of this show isn't the kind of frivolous announcement that policy strives to prevent. As to your comparisons to The After and The Man in the High Castle (TV series) (despite WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST), I'd just say that you're once again repeating your personal opinion that there are certain elements the Woody Allen series lacks that an article should have (titles, plot, etc.). But articles are built not on personal opinions like these, but on guidelines. We've established that WP:NFF isn't a good guideline to apply to TV articles, and in the absence of a TV-specific guideline, we have to return to WP:GNG, which I've argued this article meets. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon hasn't "picked up" the pilot because the pilot doesn't even exist. They have placed an order for a series. These get changed all the time. They had also placed an order for The After. My claim is that NFF is too lenient and you're arguing that we need an even more lenient standard - one that permits writing an article when nothing even exists about which to write an article beyond a single press release. (Side note: WP:GNG says that coverage must be "independent of the subject". Here is the official Amazon press release. How many of the numerous news articles about this upcoming series say anything beyond the press release?) --B (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I quite obviously meant that the series had been picked up, not a pilot. "These get changed all the time." Once again, you're trying to predict the future. Why not bring this article to AFD when and if that change happens? (Which, in all likelihood, won't happen.) And it's not our job to critique the news coverage. The question is are there third-party sources giving coverage to this topic, and the answer is yes. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, for one thing, even if I were trying to predict the future, that has nothing to do with what you linked. Wikipedia ARTICLES should not seek to predict the future. We don't have articles with speculation about future products, etc. Wikipedia editors are freely permitted to predict the future on project pages or talk pages (provided that it's germane to building an encyclopedia, etc). But that's completely irrelevant - the question is whether or not the topic meets our standard for inclusion now, not whether it might meet it tomorrow. Notability is eternal, meaning that if a topic is notable today, it will be notable forever. That, of course, means the reverse must be true - if there is any possibility that the topic will not be notable in the future, then it is not notable today. Since you concede that there is at least some remote possibility that the show might not happen and that in that eventuality, however unlikely, the topic might not be notable in the future, it must not be notable now. --B (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "We don't have articles with speculation about future products." Who's speculating? It's a signed deal. I cited sources that said it's a signed deal. If this article were based on news stories that said "Rumors are that Woody Allen is considering a show for Amazon," you'd be 100% right. As it is, you're 100% wrong. And I agree with WP:NTEMP, but I've also argued this subject is notable because it meets WP:GNG. And your argument that my statement that we could always bring back the AFD discussion later means I'm conceding that "it must not be notable now" makes no sense. If we follow that logic, are you saying that this article could never be recreated later when more details emerge or the show airs? After all, notability is eternal, so if you're arguing it's not notable now, it'll never be notable, right? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You misunderstand - I was not claiming that the article was engaging in speculation - I was responding to your claim that I was engaging in speculation. As for the eternality of notability, it is only eternal in one direction - the future. If you are notable today, you are notable tomorrow, but if you are notable today, that does not mean you were necessarily notable yesterday. My claim is that it is not an appropriate topic for an article now, though it quite likely will be one in the future. --B (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think agreeing to disagree is the best you and I can hope for on this topic in general. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note The Jack and Triumph Show, for me to poop on. — Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And please see Triumph,_the_Insult_Comic_Dog#Catchphrases if you're unfamiliar with that one. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please forgive me for being dense, but I'm not sure how that show is a meaningful comparison to this article. It premiers tomorrow and when that article was created last November, there was a title, actors, story line, and all of the other things you would normally expect to see in an article about a TV show - far more than just the news item "hey, we hired this guy to make a TBD show about TBD". --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd hope that if the AFD is closed with a result other than keep, that Hunter Kahn be permitted to Userfy the page, for the time when principal photography of the filming stage will have been started on this television program. — Cirt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, nobody would object to that. --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. This can be spoken of for now at Woody Allen#Future projects where, per policy, this future event CAN be discussed if properly sourced. WP:NFF and Too Soon tell us that until the project actually begins filming, we do not have a separate article on it. Sorry Hunter, but Allen himself is quoted as saying "I don’t know how I got into this. I have no ideas and I’m not sure where to begin. My guess is that Roy Price will regret this". Certainly Allen writing and directing a series for Amazon Studios could doubtless become an excellent article... if or when he actually does it... an yes, occasional rare exceptions are allowed, but those rare exceptions have far more information available and over a longer period of time with which to build a decent article.

If Hunter Kahn wishes it back in a draft space while the production situation progresses, I'd say give it back with our thanks for what it might possibly become. If deleted rather than being userfied or placed in draft space, I would be fine with it being WP:REFUNDed when appropriate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Struck my delete, as WP:NRVE shows the topic of his Allens' upcoming project meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]

You know I respect you as a Wikipedian, Schmidt, but I'll just politely point out that, like many of the other comments here, you are citing two sources that apply to films, not TV shows. (WP:CRYSTAL would apply if this were "unverifiable speculation" or rumors, but it's not in this case, it's verifiable through reliable sources.) And, like many of the other comments here, in lieu of a guideline that fits this article, I feel you're citing your personal opinion that there isn't enough info on this yet. But personal opinions aren't what we base these decisions on. Just my two cents. :) — Hun ter Ka hn 13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All deletes are "soft deletes" inasumuch as they are not permanently purged from the database. And yes, obviously nobody would object to userfication or restoring it without pointless process hoops if/when the series comes to fruition. --B (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only added the "soft" to lessen the impact for a well-meant good faith contributor. I do think if made the topic will easily merit an article, but even if never made it can still be spoken of at the Woody Allen article as something he considered doing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate your concern, Schmidt, but not to worry. The show is going to happen, so if the article gets deleted, another will just pop up in a few months once more details get released. I just don't understand the big rush to delete now and force somebody else to start from scratch later, rather than just give it a few weeks or months. The AFD process isn't going anywhere, it could always be brought back there on the extremely remote chance it falls through. — Hun ter Ka hn 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the show actually gets made, the deleted article can be restored. Or, rather than deleting it, it can simply right now, today, this moment, be moved to a subpage of your user space, like User:Hunter Kahn/Untitled Woody Allen TV series, so that when the show comes to fruition, you can move it back. Nobody will have to re-type everything. --B (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've preserved it, that's all well and good, but that's not serving the readers of the encyclopedia. I still think having the separate article improves Wikipedia by creating a centralized location (as opposed to a sentence on Woody Allen's article) where all the info is available, and where more can be gradually added with time. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL, period. I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently. Let me quote some: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you might not know what "speculation and rumor" means. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I know damn well what they mean: for one thing, I'm pretty sanguine with calling a "series" projected two years out, where the showrunner is quoted as saying he has no idea how he got into it, he has no ideas or notion where to begin, and that the bosses will likely regret it "speculative." Now I get you're invested in rebutting every Delete voter's argument, but last I checked, closing admins didn't grade AfD arguments on volume. You got a genuine rebuttal you haven't already said before, proffer it. If you're just delivering snark, add WP:CIVIL to the list of guidelines worth reviewing. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already essentially responded to your main point elsewhere in this AFD so I won't repeat myself. I'll just say any snark you picked up from me was simply my response to yours in the first place ("I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently"), but apologies anyway, I will be more civil. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And actually Nha Trang the very first point of Crystal policy does allow it to be written of when it instructs "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

So the question for a separate article is not based so much upon based coverage meeting WP:GNG (it does) as it is dependent upon whether or not the discussed series will actually be made. If it is made, then notability is assured. If not, it can still be (and already is) written of for now in the Woody Allen article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitrary Section Break 2

Changed to Keep. In looking to its extensive coverage [1] we have a notable topic in his next project... and it is one which POLICY states can be spoken of within these pages. The essay WP:HAMMER is fine, but does not apply to all such cases. It being as yet untitled is less an issue as "Every year, Woody Allen releases a new film. And every year it’s titled “The Untitled Woody Allen Project”, well… until it has a title." That being his sourcable process, it is acceptable and allows this as one of those reasonable exceptions. We can move the article to its name when sourcable.

And a note to User B to answer a question you posed up above... Yes, I can recall exceptions, allowed per their extensive coverage. For instance we've had several early articles on various Hobbit film projects before they began filming, and when all we had was well-sourced speculation and confirmation of plans... kept per coverage and then moved to their final titles when known. In this case, Amazon HAS ordered a first season. It serves the project and its readers to have this spoken of and sourced in one location. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While that's very true that exceptions to NFF can be made when there is extensive coverage, is that really the case here? This is a news item based on a single press release. That press release has been quoted by 40,900 news sources. But that's it. There is NOTHING else to say about it. You click on any of these articles and they don't have anything new to say beyond what was in the press release. It's a news item and we don't make separate encyclopedia articles about every single news item. Comcast had their quarterly earnings report and announced a dividend. This is covered widely in the media and I get about 16,000 Google news hits on it. Are we going to create an article called Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend? No, because it's just a news item. And before someone screams (again) OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, this is an illustration of what is a news item vs what is an encyclopedia article. When something else happens (a name is announced, actors are hired, filming starts, etc) then it makes sense to have an article. Until then, it's just a news item that should be at WikiNews, not in an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already made this point, and I've already said my piece on this multiple times, so I'm not going to respond except to say that a signed television series that is under development and a quarterly earnings report is not remotely comparable, even putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. You and I have debated this over and over, and no clear consensus has been reached, so IMHO, I honestly don't think it's worthwhile to continue that back and forth and we should let other voices chime in and respond to them if need be. Again, just my opinion. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  (ADDENDUM: Apologies, B, because your comment was underneath the "relisted" tag, I thought you were simply starting a new comment thread, I didn't realize you were responding to a direct statement. My mistake. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  - I responded to something specifically directed at me. I apologize if responding to a comment directed specifically at me is offensive in some way. I think there is a pretty clear consensus to delete, but, two reviewing admins disagree so I will defer to their opinions. You think that our normal practices of not having articles about topics that are merely news items should not apply in this case because of an essay on what constitutes good and bad arguments. The original idea behind OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and, by extension OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) is that merely because we tolerate (or don't know about) one article that violates our inclusion guidelines or is a borderline violation of the same does not mean that we should go create more of the same. ("But Susy did it" is not an excuse when Bobby does it.) It is NOT a rejection of the principle of letting our standard practices be a guide to proper decision making. Let me ask this silly question - what argument have you made for keeping this article that would not apply equally well to having an article on Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend? I 100% agree with you that common sense forbids having an article on Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend and if your interpretation of a rule would permit having an article on such an absurd topic, then I suggest that your interpretation of the rule may be flawed. --B (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've said, I've already made my arguments as to why this article meets WP:GNG and why it is more notable than some random news story, and I will not engage in this back-and-forth with you anymore. We've been debating this for nearly a month now and are simply repeating the same arguments at this point, and there's simply no more value in two people dominating an AFD, which will lead to nothing but deadline and an inevitable lack of consensus. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:11, 3 March 2015 (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.