Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dare to Love Me
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article on unfilmed movie, composed of weasel words ("it is expected", "likely"). WP:CRYSTAL applies. PROD tag added, but removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff with the comment "doesn't meet crystal ball guidelines". Calton | Talk 00:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very much is crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 02:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MER-C 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Confirmed film, not crystal ballism at all. Variety article about it, and I suggest the nom, as well as other commenters, actually read the section on crystal ballism: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. From the Variety article, I garnered that the rights to the movie were purchased, but that nothing's been set in stone yet. Am I mistaken? --Wafulz 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I HAVE read the guidelines (I quoted them to someone just today) and the Variety piece, Badlydrawnjeff's sneering insinuation notwithstanding. And this qualifies as "notable" and "almost certain to take place" how? The latter especially: let me guess: you have a crystal ball that told you that it was sure to happen? --Calton | Talk 08:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- From the Variety article, we learn who's producing, who's starring, and a lot of other good tidbits. All indications say that this is "almost certain to take place." Not a question in the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a question to you and your Magic Crystal Ball, no. You really don't understand how Hollywood works, do you? Free clue: ads in Variety for upcoming productions often feature the phrase "Credits not contractual". There's a reason for that. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, good luck getting it soon, I suppose. Not much else I can say if you don't even care to pay attention to the arguments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Premature article. Film projects need to be at least at the substantial marketing phase for an article about a future film to be valid, in my opinion Bwithh 06:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rights sale is no guaranteed ticket out of D Hell. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, But article needs a rewrite. Although the editor who started the article jumped the gun by quite a margin, the principal photography on the movie starts soon and therefore it will be notable. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 18:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article can be added when the movie moves from "pre-production" to production. --- Skapur 20:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:29, 28 December 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.