Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 delete – Gurch 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warcraft (film)
Crystal ball. Just because the rights were sold doesn't mean the movie will be made. Ace of Sevens 08:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom GassyGuy 08:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 08:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike • 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: IMDb does have an entry for a Warcraft film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803096/). There have also been interviews related to the film (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6151334.html). Pasi 11:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment In my experience, IMdB is not a reliable measure of the status of a film's development. — Mike • 15:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete rights does not equal film. More crystal ballism (god help us if this ends up in uwe bolls hands) Ydam 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete crystal ball —Mets501talk 15:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I expect the article will have to be recreated at some point though. Feels a bit pointless. Still, no crystal balling. Trebor 17:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteMany rights have been sold, but that is never an indication of a forthcoming film. And of course, no crystal balling. ViceroyInterus 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Bring it back if it ever makes it to distribution (unlikely). Ted 23:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, does not violate crystal ball policy, and is a notable and verifiable production. Crystal ball policy explicitly allows for discussion on future project, and even discussion and arguments on the prospects for success of a future project. Seeing how this is a notable project, that has had press attention, it should not pose a problem to make a properly referenced article. Development hell is notorious for movies, but that does not mean that crystal ball guidelines can just be blanket applied to all film projects that are in early stages. The benchmark should be verifiability and notability, which also is the stated basis for the crystal ball policy, and this project meets both. --Codemonkey 23:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. I personally don't believe this violates crystal ball policy. Why would the word "expected" be in the upcoming films box? However, the pro-delete people have made an arguement, so my comment is Weak Keep. Userpie 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. Until the movie is actually in production noting the verifiable facts on the main Warcraft page is probably best. Eluchil404 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Retaliation While the movie is not in production it is not cancelled either if they do not cancel the movie they will eventually start producing it and this article will just be remade.Zach 02:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Retaliation for what? Since the movie isn't in production, it can't be cancelled. It hasn't been budgeted, etc, onylicensed. Most hot properties get licensed. In many cases, the license is never actually used. Lord of the Rings had the rights sold more than thirty years before it was made. If the Wikipedia had existed at the time, would it have been appropriate to have an article that whole time just to inform people of who had the rights? Ace of Sevens 11:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what ShadowZach means with retaliation means either. But if you read the actual interviews, press release, etc. it's more than just licensed, or optioning of the movie rights of some property. They've entered an agreement to produce a movie together. I hope I have edited the page enough so that it, verifiably, reflects this. Crystal Ball guidelines are there to cut down on 'unverifiable speculation'. I feel the project is in such a state that an article about it will not be 'unverifiable speculation', and that in fact the current state of the article is evidence of this. --Codemonkey 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Retaliation for what? Since the movie isn't in production, it can't be cancelled. It hasn't been budgeted, etc, onylicensed. Most hot properties get licensed. In many cases, the license is never actually used. Lord of the Rings had the rights sold more than thirty years before it was made. If the Wikipedia had existed at the time, would it have been appropriate to have an article that whole time just to inform people of who had the rights? Ace of Sevens 11:03, 13 June 2006 (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.
