Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete . Draftspace is intended for the development of articles that have a reasonable chance of being moved to mainspace. Commenters have shown that this film still has not entered pre-production and at this point, there is no reasonable chance of this being moved to mainspace. When (if!) there is more reliable information, it will be reasonable to prepare a draft in advance of the film's release, but this one is stale with no chance of improvement at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Panzer 88[edit]

Draft:Panzer 88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Panzer 88 is an upcoming WWII supernatural action thriller film, set to begin production in early-to-mid 2011 and start filming in September 2011, with plans to complete and release the film in 2012. " yet editors keep maintaining it without reading the lead so it's not currently G13 eligible. As far as I can see this film never got out of development hell. Legacypac (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously old, seriously wrong? Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me, or the draft? VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the draft for sure, but if you want me to call your vote wrong I'll oblige. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fun times. Anyways: "seriously old" - no, it was edited less than six months ago so G13 does not apply. "Seriously wrong" - no, that's not a reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The single edit within 6 months [1] only categorized the draft which does not exempt it from G13. I've corrected the nom. The page is seriously out if date. It's about an evidently abandoned film project. How to WP:OVERCOME that? Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERCOME is a notability essay, so your citing it in an MfD is doubly irrelevant. Also, 15 seconds of Googling would show recent activity on the subject (again, not that that's relevant to an MfD discussion). VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep  (1) Fastily deleted this draft without notice to interested parties such as previous participants in the MfD discussion in which this draft was kept.  (2) Fastily deleted this draft as an AfC submission, which it was not.  (3) Lagacypac hasn't mentioned the recent activity just within the past week regarding this movie.  (4) Nor did Legacypac do enough research to find the previous MfD that had he done so he/she would have been aware of activity in 2013.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not required. 2. G13 applies to all Drafts now. I saw the old MfD - it does not apply to deletion under current rules. What does something 5 years ago have to do with anything? This is not a SNOW keep. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(two personal attack posts removed) Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what the heck are you even talking about? Your statement looks like a streight up personal attack to me. WP:G13 now covers all Drafts, not just AfC submissions. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You claim this is not a snow keep without evidence; but then your nomination rather than showing research of the topic and presentation of relevant issues for the community to make a solid decision; the nomination shows the use of a curse word.  So why do you care one way or another what happens here?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice  On my talk page, User:Legacypac has made a demand and left a threat involving the material on this talk page if the demand is not met.  I have removed the post.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial demand was directed at the questions, "::Falsification of records is never proper behavior, but I guess you don't care about that?  Why is that?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)"  However, in enacting the threat, User:Legacypac has removed a second post, and also added the assertion that each of the posts were "personal attack posts".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeed. Either you are suggesting I "falsified records" or someone else did. Either way, that is an unsubstantiated personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you don't know who is involved, which means it is unsubstantiated because...because you don't know who is involved?  No, you should withdraw from this nomination because you aren't interested in the topic of discussion, and you don't care what the outcome is...and since you haven't done the research you are unaware that this topic is currently to be found on four articles within the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what the point of all the above posts is. Anyway, the page says this started filming in 2011. That is not correct. The page is largely sourced to facebook posts. That is not good. The page says various people are working on the project, which seems very unlikely 6 years later. The project remains in development hell according to their own facebook page. If/when this proposed film actually starts filming, then a page shoild be started. Until than this draft needs to be deleted. Currently it reads as a hoax. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another curse word.  And you are fishing for an argument or arguments for deletion immediately after stating, "I can't understand what the point of all the above posts is".  You can't even see the article, yet you've suddenly concluded something about how it "[c]urrently...reads".  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See development hell. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the name of the article incorporates a curse word.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice  The draft has been restored as per [2]] at 2017-09-02T04:07:00.  I have requested restoration of the Draft talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasonable draft. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-viable stale draft. It is stale despite recent edits because none of those edits have been substantive: Nothing significant has changed in this draft since 2012 and the first time it was MfD'd and stuck in the article incubator. The discussion of the "production" is little more than studio ad copy: There is absolutely nothing here that could become an acceptable article, and no objective information to suggest that it will ever become a viable article subject. This is a project that has languished in development hell for over fifteen years, and the draft itself has languished for over five years. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor comes here following a discussion at ANI diff, in which Legacypac references this MfD diff. 
    The idea of "languishing" is support for a central Wikipedia authority telling the workers to step up their creativity or watch their work be tossed on the production floor, but this is not a policy-based viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you found the need to reference my participation in a particular ANI thread prior to my coming here. Are you suggesting something? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your words, not mine, written on 23:28 10 September 2017, are, "I'm here and I'm not leaving. Don't like it? Don't participate."  IMO, if you don't know what your actions suggest, you aren't going to have much success in getting other people to explain them for you.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand what you're getting at. You just quoted something I said at another MfD after you tried to intimidate me into leaving. I don't get why you think any of that is relevant to this discussion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can deny knowing the explanation for the sequence of your actions, but repeatedly complaining that I am not able to tell you why that sequence exists, that is your personal problem.
    Here you've followed up with a new escalation that with the statement, The "enough already" shows that your !vote is behavioral support for a central Wikipedia authority telling the production floor workers to step up their creativity.  Your comment implies that our content contributors lack the skills of a PhD in math from Chicago, but even if true that doesn't mean that our content contributors can't decide for themselves if and when this page has no future.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC), that I "tried to intimidate <you> into leaving".  The meaning you claim is not to be found in these words.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe this version of the article will be helpful if-or-when the motion picture exists, and I can't find any reliable information on the film's current status. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - draft about a topic which presently fails WP:NFILM, with no indication that this will change. Draft space is meant for pages intended to become articles, and this one cannot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goes to DEL8 and reads; Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline.... Article fails to meet NFILM, NFILM is the relevant notability guideline. Therefore, article meets DEL8. Therefore, article should be deleted. WP:ATA isn't about keeping articles that aren't notable, it's about avoiding blinds assertions that something is just not notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has insurmountable problems starting with the fact the film has not been developed in 16 years (pre-production started in 2001 according to the article itself). I note that this recently (2017) published short article in a magazine claims that the movie will be released soon, but, doesn't actually say when. Wikipedia is not a crystalball, specifically, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. There is exceptional leeway with draftspace, however, I'm going to take a second to point out something that should be obvious. Even if the film is one day released, there is no guarantee that it will be notable enough for the encyclopaedia even then. This is a draft that's sitting in the same development hell that the film is. Delete it. If and when there's a reason to recreate it, it can be refunded or someone can start anew. Till then, this draft is just sitting around gathering dust and not appreciating in value. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Panzer_88&oldid=1074082007"