Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf's Up (film)

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 keep. moink 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf's Up (film)[edit]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR per discussion Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This film isn't scheduled for release until 2007, and according to the edit history it's not even known which studio is making it. Delete. kingboyk 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Royboycrashfan 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMDB has a bit of info on the Sony producing and distributing it and since they're already filming, the cast part of the article is clearly verifiable. It's not making any crystal ball claims. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In-production project from major studio with highly notable cast. Meets the "crystal ball" policy standard that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Nominator should have checked verifiability by reviewing already existing IMDB link. Monicasdude 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. But it's one IMDB link and the film is a year away. It could be pulled yet. I think we shouldn't be publishing articles on in production movies until they are ready. --kingboyk 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then you simply shouldn't have nominated the article, since it's in compliance with the applicable Wikipedia policy, and you should withdraw your nomination. Monicasdude 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability? Please add some credible sources to the article and I will consider withdrawing the nomination. For now, my nomination and vote stands. You shouldn't worry about it, if I'm as blatantly wrong as you suggest (which I might well be) other editors will soon let me know. --kingboyk 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article is "verifiable" if sources for the information can be found, as they can in this case. There's an IMDB link in the article, and IMDB information is generally considered verification here. You're arguing for deleting articles which don't meet your standards for listing references, which is by no means Wikipedia policy; you're skating on the edge of a bad faith nomination now. Monicasdude 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that IMDB articles are user submitted and not necessarily reliable? If I'm wrong in that then I will certainly withdraw. If I'm not, then I won't - one year is a long time in the advance, and we have no business publishing vagaries about a nowhere near ready film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'd appreciate the input of an admin here, or another experienced user, if I'm so advised I'll withdraw it. --kingboyk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a couple of refs, including one to the NY Times. While WP is not a crystal ball, the release date of a movie is merely the end of a lot of long, verifiable work. Turnstep 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:30, 10 February 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.