Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future film, unsourced. Has not begun principle photography. SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's unsourced, but from the tone and information presented I have to strongly suspect it is not unsourceable. In all likelihood it just needs citations added to wherever all this specificity came from. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (films). —chaos5023 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films - SummerPhD (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, film hasn't even begun shooting yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. According to the article, it's already had some problems with the production. This is why WP:NFF exists; who knows if the film will ever be made. Mike Allen 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note IP 76.168.75.62 removed the AFD tag from the article.[1] I reverted and place a polite caution on the IP's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Though it may (or may not) be notable in the future, topic currently does not have enough in- depth and enduring coverage of its production to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 10 November 2010 (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.