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. LFaraone 04:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an internet search I could find no new information about this film since the 2010 FilmoFilia article used as a ref MarnetteD | Talk 23:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Delete per WP:NFF. The alternative would be to merge the info into the Burr Steers article and create a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 23:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand if other editors can find new info and update the article I have no objection to that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate article or temporarilymerge and redirecttoBurr Steers. The topic of this planned film is covered in multiple independent sources (ie: ColliderDeadlineMoviefoneKiller Film and some others), but WP:NFF tells us that it may simply be TOO SOON for a separate article. Allow undeletion or recreation once filming has been confirmed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that all of your examples were three years old or more? As I said I have found nothing about the film that is more recent. I would be more in favor of a merge if there was any indication that Burrs or anyone for that matter was still working in some fashion on the project. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would make sense that "incubation" is off the table. So stricken above. WP:NFF indicates a film topic not have its own article, but as we do have a topic which is discussed in independent sources, even if older sources, we do have something that can still be discussed in some manner within the director's article... even if never made. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; no indication of production since three years ago. If we are to mention the development, I think it should go on the source material article. It looks like there is only the author's article, though, so we can have a single sentence there mentioning a brief plan to adapt a film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the available coverage is more to do with Steers being hired by Exclusive Media Group to direct, and less about the Conn Iggulden novel series and, as his being hired to direct (whether he ever does so or not, he has cashed the check) is part of his career, I went ahead and added two sourced sentences over at Burr Steers#Career. As the proposed title Emperor: Young Caesar IS a searchable term that gives results in independent sources, I think that while it may be mentioned somewhere within the Conn Iggulden article, I think a redirect of a searchable term to the director's article makes more sense. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is up for debate that being attached to a project is a highlight worth noting. Directors get attached to a project all the time. For Hancock (film), for example, Mann, Mostow, and Muccino were attached to direct before Berg actually went through with it. I've seen the same revolving-door effect with other films and other directors. I can think of numerous non-projects by David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Zack Snyder, etc. Applies to screenwriters, too -- I had thisatAlex Tse before I realized that his career had no specific traction. News coverage does not necessarily translate directly into encyclopedic coverage. The fact that there is no completed film greatly minimizes the importance of such detail. With a completed film, such development history becomes relevant. I think the source material serves as a better base for content because it can have multiple attempts in film adaptation, like Shantaram (novel)#Film adaptation. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that unrealized projects do not have an inherent notability. Something like Kubrick's projected film about Napoleon does qualify since he used the research he did in the filming of Barry Lyndon. I don't see that Speers has continued with any interest in Caesar or the Roman Empire. IMO the likelihood fact that it is unlikely of a reader typing in that full title in out search engine combined with the fact that IMDb does not have a page for this title means that I still lean toward 'delete'. Should the project ever get the green light the article can certainly be resurrected and Steers early involvement given a brief mention. MichaelQSchmidt's research effort in this are to be admired. Erik - you mention of all the directors attached to Hancock reminds me of how each new paperback edition of Dune published back in the 70's had "Soon to be a major film directed by X" with a different name each time on its back cover. MarnetteD | Talk 15:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I listened to what Eric proposed up above, which is why I also created an alternate target at Conn Iggulden#Emperor series film adaptation... a section which can be expanded if other adaptations of his works are contemplated and receive coverage. Whether this title is considered searchable enough to be worth redirecting or not, at least sourced information has been preserved to serve our readers. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as there is no indication that this project is even still in development. As a second choice, redirecttoConn Iggulden#Emperor series film adaptation per Michael; this project might be made without Burr Steers, but if it were made without being based on Iggulden's books, then it would be a completely separate film. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:20, 1 July 2013 (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.
