Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mummy 3

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Mallanox 01:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mummy 3

The Mummy 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

WP:CRYSTAL. This film is not even in production yet. The sources are all rumour, none of them can categorically say the project is greenlighted possible breach of WP:V. Mallanox 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, shows up on imdb as "announced", and appears to have a director and writer attached, and slated for 2008. [1] I'm not sure that's really a breach of WP:V (AIUI). Thoughts? --Davidbober 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • IMDB suffers from the same problem as Wikipedia: anyone can update it. They may have used the same sources to validate those claims, difficult to know. If anyone can prove that production is underway I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Mallanox 03:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The latest January 2007 citation (from Variety, no less) indicates that the film is in active development. Development is the first stage of a production cycle, and the studio is in active talks with a potential director. This isn't a film that's on the backburner; there's official interest in it, and I think AfD is too soon to determine whether this film should warrant a deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) recognizes that there is a movie by that title in preproduction. See The Mummy 3. Mkdw^talk 04:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the IMDb reference may not be considered acceptable, the Variety reference should be, and there has been other media coverage, too. I would recommend revisiting the article in 6 months, however, to make sure the film is still a going concern and hasn't gone into development hell or something. 23skidoo 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The IMDB reference is acceptable. Its been recognized by the G13 Universities in Canada as a credible sources for film information. It's also listed as a recommended resource at the Vancouver Film School and University of British Columbia. I also believe their budgeting reports are on the recommended reading lists at UCLA. Mkdw^talk 04:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I would consider IMDB a reliable source for article writing based on the opinions of a few Universities. IMDB is chock full of errors and incorrect information and they are ridiculously slow about actually fixing incorrect information. Regardless it's sort of a moot point here as Variety covered this.--Isotope23 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, movie has been already on the IMDB, sources are already present. There are also other coverage of this film and has been talked about in several places. Terence Ong 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Bigtop 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Arctic Gnome 18:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per IMDB related comments. JCO312 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - IMDb cannot be updated by anyone. You can register on IMDb and the only thing you can do is offering modifications that gets supervised by the IMDb research team. So if it gets a new page than the film is in production (as a third part of a successful sequel it rapidly becomes notable). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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.