Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speed 3 (first nomination of recreated article)

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 of the debate was DELETE —Wh o uk (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed 3[edit]

Delete. Article creator is creating multiple sequel articles with no references whatsoever — examples are Signs 2, Blair Witch 3: The Prequel, Stir of Echoes: The Dead Speak, and I'll Never Forget what You Did Last Summer. Please also see Fan1967's statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs 2 regarding possible malicious motive behind same. Last Summer "sequel" kept getting AfD notice removal from anonymous users editing behind AOL proxy servers (see here and here), so that's a possibility with this one — your vigilance would be appreciated. — Mike • 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See also first AFD.
- ~~Also nominated for {{db-repost}}. — Mike • 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Speedy delete has been turned down by admin — says material does not match between the two. — Mike • 02:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speed3y delete as recreation of previously deleted material. DVD+ R/W 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Delete. WP: Is not a crystal ball. DVD+ R/W 02:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, malicious user using sock puppets to re-create various articles.--Andeh 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, guys, look above. Speedy delete ain't gonna happen. — Mike • 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or no, it's still a big, fat delete. -- Kicking222 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball. No point making articles about movies that have not gone into production yet. Ace of Sevens 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballism. SM247 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, the previous AFD is immaterial. In Dec 2005, the movie had absolutely no foundation in reality. Since that time (specifically in the past 3 months), a number of insider sites have now discussed the fact that Fox is interested in this sequel if they get both Keanu and Bullock aboard (as you can read about if you actually read the sources in the stub). ju66l3r 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT a crystal ball: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." 'Nuff said. — WCityMike • 03:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the (see also) is common courtesy for any article having experienced more than one nomination. — Mike • 03:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball. They don't even have a movie script or actors yet! —M e ts501^talk 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Although this is rumored, it's not known yet if thier is any truth to this, I'm voting Delete and recreate if anything ever comes of this. Deathawk 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and pray to God it is just a rumor. Danny Lilithborne 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 07:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of a Redirect to Father Ted (Series 3)? ;-) Seb Patrick 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation based on an article. Note that if the movie is confirmed by the studio, I would change that to Keep, because the Crystal ball clause clearly states If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.. As of today, the event isn't still confirmed. -- ReyBrujo 15:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at normal speeds per WP:NOT crystalball clause. This delete should be without prejudice though... in the event this actually verifiably gets greenlit by a studio, it could be readded. Right now it isn't even in development hell yet... and in movie terms there is no solid indication it will ever be made into an actual motion picture.--Isotope23 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This film has not even got a script, never mind a release date! Crystal ball cruft for which Wikipedia is plainly not. doktorb | words 23:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Starionwolf 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)I can't find any evidence tha[reply]
Delete Indeed, the crystal ball's magic 8 ball's response is hazy, try again later. Kevin_b_er 06:56, 10 June 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.