Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thetan (3rd nomination)

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. Routine closure; NFF is pretty clear on this issue. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thetan[edit]

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen a lot of projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so this is the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline.

It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike.

This article has had no fresh information of note since its last AfD, and the star attached to the project has denied his involvement; frankly, this story smells like tabloid rumour-mongering, and a year after its last AfD, only a cursory application of common sense is required to see that this is not going to happen. There isn't even an IMDb page for it. And should there be even a grain of truth here, in accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 19:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Delete because this article is a crystal ball; the film is not "notable and almost certain to take place" because there is no film at all and never has been. There is no lasting topic, merely a spout of rumors that circulated a couple of winters ago. It's more like a news report. If necessary, The Thetan can be mentioned at Tom Cruise if it isn't already, using this article's sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, blatant crystal-ballery. The only reason I didn't put it up with that rationale was because of its keep the last time around, when the argument against pretty much was WP:CRYSTAL. Steve ^{T • C} 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was little of substance to the original celebrity gossip story when it was passed around from paper to paper in a slow news period, and it hasn't aged well. Park it with the story on Tom Cruise's alien defense bunker. AndroidCat (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scientology charges good money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) to tell you about Thetans. There's no way they'd give it out for the price of a movie ticket. Hoax. - Richfife (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, or merge to Tom Cruise. A google news search does not any new sources, which would tend to indicate that he film is on some sort of "hold", though I do find references to a Tom Cruise Scientology recruiting video from 2007 called "I am the Way, the Thetan, the Light". If a film called "The Thetan" is made, then bring the article back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no film; this is simply an old tabloid rumour which is well past its sell by date. Verifiability of the rumour may not be a problem, but we shouldn't be in the buisness of documenting any old rubbish. Even at best this fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this speculation. Bring it back if shooting begins. Cliff smith ^talk 01:22, 20 October 2008 (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.