Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mission: Impossible III

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. JeremyA 22:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mission: Impossible III

This page is wrong for very many reasons: there is no information, no sources, no verifiability; Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball; user has a history of vandalism; &c. Delete or speedy this, please. jglc | t | c 20:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify this VfD: At the time that I put it up for voting, the only text on the page was the following:

"A wonderful movie, as one of the producers, I know it will go far. I'm not really a producer though, i'm just some random guy who happened to see one scene filming."

In its current incarnation, as a stub for future development as the movie is filmed, goes into postproduction, and is released, it is a keep. jglc | t | c 01:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Article writer lies in the text, than admits to lying. Nothing more than speculation. --Scimitar 20:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. --Scimitar 22:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Decided to rewrite it - for now. Make an article about it in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, it seems the movie just got green lighted. Reuters --Chill Pill Bill 20:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll be looking for your rewrite. :) jglc | t | c 20:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Looks good. jglc | t | c 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Sn0wflake 21:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Now it makes sense. DS1953 21:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should be comprehensive and this sort of thing is of wide interest, though not of interest to me. CalJW 00:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know, but the entry as previously written was nonsense. It's fine now. jglc | t | c 00:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't qualify for the "crystal ball" rule because it is confirmed upcoming event for which planning is under way (a la Casino Royale (2006 movie)). 23skidoo 01:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ChillPillBill's rewrite. As for Halo (movie) this is a movie with verifiable information about it and is notable because of the success of the first two films. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe movie is now confirmed - no need for deletion. --Sb2k4 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Taku 23:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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.