Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo (movie)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) (breakdown: keep 15, delete 12, 4 merge, 3 votes not counted). - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halo (movie)

  • Delete as speculation. Possibly redirect back to Halo (video game series)? --Idont Havaname 04:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought that too, but Yahoo News has several articles about it, it appears to be legitimate. --Sysop073 04:09, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep I think its real. --Sysop073 04:16, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. See "Wiki is not a Crystal Ball". Also, its One line hardly says anything.Fabartus 04:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The one line is bad, but doesn't merit deletion, and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball has an exception for "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress"; whether it merits "encyclopedic inclusion" could be argued either way. --Sysop073 04:51, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. I rounded it up a bit, but maybe someone interested in the topic could go further? Karol 05:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speculation - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 06:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to series article. -Sean Curtin 06:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, no crystal ball necessary. Kappa 06:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Halo (video game series), WP is not a crystal ball. Imagine if we had an article on every script that someone was trying to sell to Hollywood? Just because Microsoft owns it doesn't except it from the crystall ball policy. Merge & redir though, for being somewhat notable. --bainer (talk) 08:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • M&R as above. Radiant_>|< 09:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Halo (video game series), as they say WP is not a crystal ball. MS can pitch it all they like but that doesn't mean it will ever be made, unless the speculation becomes more concrete then imo it's only really worth noting in the context of the game. -- Lochaber 10:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Often-misused crystall ball argument only applies if non-verifiable Proto 10:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to news stories on Google News, Fox and Universal studios [1] are negotiating with Microsoft to make this movie. There is already verifiable information and quite a deal of buzz. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Proto said it best above. --ShaunMacPherson 12:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exempt from crystal ball rule because the game impact is huge, a legitimate, well-known writer wrote the script, and Microsoft bought it. If it were in the stage of the author negotiating with Microsoft, than we'd need that crystal ball. But not at this stage. --Scimitar 13:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Making a statement like "The might be a Spider-Man V released in 2015" would be a crystal ball event, but this is verfiable.23skidoo 17:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is unverifiable. All the article establishes is that some dude wrote a script and that MS bought it. How many scripts are bought in a year that don't ever get made? Note that this was not bought by a studio, but by Microsoft. There is no movie. There is a desire for a movie. Imagine what it would have been like if someone had written an article on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (movie) back in 1990. After all, a script had been written, and, what's more, the rights had been sold to an actual studio. When did the movie actually come out? 2005. It's just happy feet to think that this is unlike any other crystal ball article. Delete until the thing actually exists. Right now, it isn't even in the process of being born. Geogre 18:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • De;ete, speculation. RickK 19:49, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it seems verifiable enough Yuckfoo 20:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WINACB. This "movie" hasn't even entered pre-production yet – all there is is a script. There are many, many more scripts-seeking-a-studio out there that don't have the backing of a giant corporation. Do they all deserve articles? I wouldn't object to a couple of lines being added to the main Halo article about this potential movie, but for it to have its own article at this point in time is rather premature. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added to the article. In my view, the fact that the film is a Microsoft developed project clearly makes it notable. Microsoft has reached a tentative agreement with 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures and the project represents the first film project associated with Microsoft is a notable fact. The crystal ball rule should only apply when there are serious doubts about verifiability and/or notability. There are 57 news articles on Google News currently about this project. [2] as at the time of this vote indicating both the presence of verifiable information and notability. If this article were to be deleted, it would only be recreated shortly as the project proceeds. There is obvious potential for this article to expand as well. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You 20:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An article ON THE speculation isn't crystal ball future predicting. Obviously notable. Obviously verifiable. STudios are fighting over the script, it'll happen. SchmuckyTheCat 15:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment [[3]]... You 23:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep C'mon people, this article shouldn't be deleted. Y'all should know that this article is important. There will be a Halo movie. --John-1107 05:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect Indiana Jones 4, a potential film at a similar stage of development, doesn't have its own page, but is rather included on the Indiana Jones page. A Halo move, while important, should be tried the same way. (Unsigned vote by 65.207.98.2 09:57, Jun 17, 2005
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.