Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostbusters III

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. --Ezeu 10:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostbusters III

Appears to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there isn't even a release date yet. Wkdewey 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Aykroyd has spoken about this. It's more than just crystal ballism. - Richardcavell 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete They may sort of have an outline of a script. They don't have a firm cast. No filming has been scheduled. About as crystal as a ball can get. Fan1967 03:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This same rumor about a possible Ghostbusters III has been circulating for years. BigE1977 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rumored for more than a decade (at one point rumored to have Chris Farley and Will Smith as new Ghostbusters), has never materialized. Very crystal ball. - CNichols 03:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I seem to recall a deletion debate surrounding a movie that had been scrapped (and therefore would never get made, and therefore was unencyclopedic in terms of getting its own article), and before that, had a deletion debate that failed. There's nothing to indicate this won't get de-railed. Morgan Wick 03:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it can't get de-railed. It hasn't yet gotten railed. Fan1967 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - out of interest, did wikipedia have an article on Star Wars Episode 3 before it was made? - Richardcavell 03:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment History shows the article was created about a month after episode 2 came out. It is worth pointing out, though, that even then there were firm plans to film the movie. It had been announced as a second trilogy before episode 1 came out. This one, right now, consists of Ramis and Aykroyd saying they'd like to do another one. Fan1967 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No IMDb page. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Until the production receives the green light from a film studio, notable by a press release, then this should be deleted as speculation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculative and unverifiable at the moment. Lets see come notification through official channels before we believe jobbing actors talking up their wishlist. Rockpocket (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of information available to discuss how this fell apart. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if you read the the link, you'll see that the movie is on track now. It may only be in pre-production, but the ball is roling. Besides, if the movie has been in the works for so long, souldn't that be in the article? Failled starts are still starts and it should be noted. And there are other pre-production movies that have articles without release dates in them, like Toy Story 3. JQF 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Google gets 730 hits only for now.--Jusjih 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I was ready to be persuaded by badlydrawnjeff's arguments, but then I did my research. This simply doesn't exist. Delete. Vizjim 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting. So your research was contrary to my statement how? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no information to discuss how it fell apart, at it was never together in the first place. Vizjim 10:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any pertinent info into the main Ghostbusters article, Delete the rest. This is what, fifteen years old now? Sheesh; that crystal ball is growing lichens on its north-facing side. RGTraynor 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per RGTraynor Bucketsofg✐ 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Harold Ramis himself said: "We actually talked about it, wrote a story for it and did another draft, but we could not make the deal. Everyone had gotten so big that to get Ivan, Bill, Dan and I all packaged together, there wasn't enough in it for the studio." Aparently its not happening in the way this article portrays it.--Zer0faults 15:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as much as i would like to see it myself. viva vinz clortho! -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, has anyone actually READ the linked page in the article? It pretty much says they've started up again. JQF 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to point it out: Ramis on Ghostbusters III JQF 16:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He says they have a script, and he has some opinions on who he'd like in the cast. That's still awfully hazy. Fan1967 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He said that Dan Aykroyd and Rick Moranis will be reprising their roles, meaning some casting has happened, and it's something, which it means that there will probably be more. JQF 17:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He said that Aykroyd and Moranis will be reprising their supporting roles, but they don't have a lead to replace Murray. It's something, all right. It's hope, just like they've had since the 90's. That's a long way from the cameras rolling. Fan1967 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is to be noted the linked article at IGN references a November 5th, 2005 report, its not a new report as the date of the IGN article would assume. Also to be noted is Ramis gave an interview here where he states

It would have been interesting. So, we even created a story around that. In the end, it sounds greedy, but the deal couldn't be made. We as an entity... Me... well, I'm low man on that totem pole deal-wise, but Ivan, Bill, Danny and me couldn't make a deal with the studio. There wasn't enough left for the studio.

Sorry if I broke any rules in the formatting of this comment, this just seems like IGN made a mistake by brining a Hollywood.com article back from its 2005 slumber. --Zer0faults 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article linked seems legit, 118,000 hits on Google. Crazynas 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm--Adrift* 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and cruft -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ghostbusters. Do you have any idea how many people have a script written and some ideas about who they'd like to play the characters? More notable people than Ramis do and there are no articles about them. Aguerriero (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Palendrom 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. No release date, simply rumors and speculation.--Jersey Devil 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just because a film is in preproduction does not mean it will be finished or released. Bwithh 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the movie actually starts filming, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid article.  Grue  14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Who ya gonna call! Ewlyahoocom 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. RexNL 22:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with having an article about GB3, even though the movie might be a long way off. Mostly Rainy 05:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if the movie doesn't come to fruition, it was still in some form of existence worth mentioning.--Claude 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Ghostbusters and/or Ghostbusters II. —204.42.24.32 18:50, 23 May 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.