Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gunn's unrealized projects

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. ✗plicit 00:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Gunn's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I've been contemplating about doing this AfD for a bit now, and seen no improvements to this list in that time. Following in the footsteps of relatively recent decisions for similar subjects at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cimino's unrealized projects and Talk:Christopher Nolan/Archive 2#Proposed merge of Christopher Nolan's unrealized projects into Christopher Nolan, I am proposing this stub list have its main notable content be merged into the subject article at James Gunn. Some of these could fit nicely into the James Gunn § Other media section, while others, such as the Ravagers and Drax/Mantis spin-offs and a The Suicide Squad sequel, were never actually in development and can be dropped. Works like The Belko Experiment and Coyote vs. Acme were made, though Belko was ultimately made by someone else and CvA has yet to be released (if ever). Others are just very brief involvements or pitches that never came into fruition, and are almost just trivial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Lists, and Missouri. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Per WP:LISTN, which says that as long as the subjects in the list are described as "a group or set" in 2-3 reliable sources, it warrants having an article of its own. Here is 1, 2, and, why not, 3 ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZanderAlbatraz1145 and per WP:LISTN. The Film Creator (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I should echo some points from the debates I linked to above, specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and I'll add Wikipedia is not a directory or housing space for trivial details. Just because a list can be produced for a topic, that does not necessarily mean that it should exist. And LISTN is not a one-for-all saying that any list goes. There is also WP:SALAT which addresses the trivia concerns. Some of this content is just a WP:FORK from Gunn's article that can easily be implemented there, as I suggested. Do we really need a separate list for works he never made? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think whatever info regarding unmade projects from Gunn's main page should be ported to the Unrealized projects page then, in that case. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that third source from Slashfilm only discusses Gunn's unmade horror films, not every unmade work. Coyote vs. Acme and Belko should NOT be moved out from Gunn's article because they have been made, just not as originally intended. These projects are still very minute compared to what he's actually made and can be easily collected in his article where they are more likely to be noticed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter. Two of the unmade films on the list are described "as a group or set" in that Slashfilm article. Case in point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Discussed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: even the page as it is clearly shows this meets WP:NLIST with reliable sources discussing the topic as a set. -Mushy Yank. 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, just having some low-tier sites for a brief lead introduction and not actually discussing the specifics in the individual sections warrants any topic list to be made? Just because it can be made does not mean it must exist. Most of these sections are one-to-two sentence long statements that can easily be integrated into Gunn's article and are not as notable for their own dynamic list compared to works Gunn has actually made. It is odd having an article for what he has not made and not one for his entire filmography of made works (which counts more to such a topic that what has gone unmade). This just all seems backwards to me, by prioritizing and giving preferential treatment to things that ultimately didn't happen. I will note that Zander and Film Creator are substantial contributors to this list. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In a boolean answer? Yes. If you want to propose a merge on the talk page(s), that's not an AfD discussion and I have no opinion. But if the question is "Per policy, must this article be merged, redirected, or deleted?" then no, there's not a policy demand that it no longer exist as a standalone article. I hope that's not splitting hairs too fine, but I see a difference in the venues' charters. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's a good answer and it makes sense. (I'd much rather prefer bluntness than beating around the bush.) In prior AfDs, I have not experienced or seen any issue in a merge opinion, so that is why I felt it would be passable in this instance. I will still let this run its natural course, but if it closes as keep, I will propose a formal merge at Talk:James Gunn to weigh more opinions on the matter, as I presume this list is not as watched as the main article. I do appreciate your understanding here, I was just taken aback by the sheer willingness to keep a list based on one loose policy alone, even when its content does not merit much. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Might I add then that the project details should be fleshed out on this page more. Agreed that they are sparse on details in their current state, but does not mean that future information could not be added in the future. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: AfDs and proposed merges are different things. There are enough sources talking about Gunn's projects to justify keeping the information. Toughpigs (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ZanderAlbatraz1145, and Jclemens, meets WP:NLIST. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable topic. I don't see why it should be deleted. Azuredivay (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NLIST and per Jclemens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2025 (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.