Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Dwarf: The Movie

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf: The Movie

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No news since April 2003. Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the fact is, discussion on this movie does exist, and there is information on it on their official website. At the worse, I'd say redirect and put the information on the Red Dwarf TV series page. Mister.Manticore 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Discussion" on the movie does not excuse crystal balling. You could invoke that argument with any movie with a different media background (TV series, comic book, etc) that's dragged its feet through development hell. Furthermore, there has been no news since April 18, 2003, according to the movie news archive on that official site. (I don't know where the "summer of 2006" edit in the article came from if their last movie update was 3 years ago.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion that comes about as a result of releases from official sources, like the creators of the property does qualify. Not to mention numerous news sources on it, like IGN, who have covered it. And all your claims that this is old and out of date, and so the movie is unlikely to happen do is make this event history. That's the opposite of a crystal ball. And yes, there are some articles on movies in development hell. At most, I'd say redirect to the Red Dwarf page, but it's not like you're going to delete this information from there. Mister.Manticore 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Manticore --Alynna 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'd be fine with any useful information being merged into Red Dwarf. --Alynna 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, discussion is not enough. Gazpacho 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom and Gazpacho. The topic is adequately covered in both the development hell and Red Dwarf articles (in fact, more than enough is mentioned in the latter). Agent 86 20:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Smeg it per nom, Agent 86 and common sense. I've been keeping tabs on Red Dwarf for a while, and the sad reality is that this film isn't going to be made, certainly not in the near- to -medium-term, and likely not ever. Nobody is going to be prevented from recreating the article if production ever actually does begin. --Aaron 22:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there's nothing here that can't be said in the Red Dwarf article. Obviously if they ever actually start pre-production things change then...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't the place to present treatment for a non-greenlit scrip. --Marriedtofilm 04:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Red Dwarf. JubalHarshaw 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Red Dwarf has more than enough, so send it to silicon hell along with all the photocopiers. Andjam 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An obvious candidate for deletion. —Encephalon 06:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge = Even though I created it in the first place, I can see why it doesn't deserva an article at the moment. Should it become a film, then the article should be re-created. until then, merge it. User:Tom walker 20:53 GMT 21 October 2006

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.