Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Age 3 (2nd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn with only !votes for keeping placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Age 3

Ice Age 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This film, which was previously deleted due to lack of verifiable coverage, has been recreated. While there is some verifiable coverage now, the film still has not begun production, so its existence is not yet appropriate per the notability guidelines for future films. The most recent bit of news is this interview in which one of the actor mentions going to LA to join the project, which indicates a lack of production activity. If production really does begin, which is more doubtful nowadays in Hollywood with the writers' strike, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Comment - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when production is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - as an aside, couldn't this have been speedied as per CSD criteria G4? Steve ^{T • C} 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I put up a {{db-repost}} when I saw that the first nomination existed. However, admin Jon513 said the article was different from when it first underwent the AFD in actually having a IMDb page and other sources. (WP:NFF wasn't around at that time, so that couldn't apply.) Thus, a fresh AFD is necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, that seems a bit nit-picky to me, as WP:NFF does encompass the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL (to a small extent), but hey-ho, I can't see this AfD being particularly controversial, so there'll be something for CSD next time around. Steve ^{T • C} 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The difference is that WP:CRYSTAL applied fully to the article in the previous two AFDs in not having verifiable coverage. This article, though, has some verifiable coverage, differentiating it from previous incarnations. Per WP:CRYSTAL, it's acceptable to have verifiable coverage of an announced project, so it didn't serve as the strongest argument in AFDs of such projects' articles. That's why WP:FUTFILM encourages the relocation of such information whenever possible. I've perceived WP:NFF as an application of WP:SS since articles on announced projects have a high chance of being perpetually stubby and never become fleshed-out film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Steve) - A source in the article states: "Denis Leary has told MTV News that production is starting for a third film in Fox’s blockbuster animated franchise, Ice Age." So do you support keeping this? Torc2 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm nothing if not consistent. I've struck out my delete vote for now due to this report, which states Leary has "begun working" on Ice Age 3, and this, which states that Blue Sky Studios is currently "in production" on the film. Neither is bona fide confirmation; "in production" can be vague (the imdb classifies many which are merely announced, but not filming, as such, for example) and Leary may merely be in rehearsals. However, it's enough to withdraw my vote pending discussion of these issues on this AfD page. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would not necessarily rely on an actor saying that production will begin soon -- see coverage for Untitled X-Files sequel, when Duchovny assured the impending start of production for almost every year between 201 and 2007. Just a suggestion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Reliable source says it has begun production. Torc2 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep sources seem to indicate that the movie will be produced... But you can bet it will just be the same jokes again... Fosnez (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Based on Steve's information, I'll withdraw the nomination. It seems that animated films are trickier than live-action films in determining when they actually start. Probably should have a closer look to see how they differ in terms of starting production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:50, 5 February 2008 (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.