Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thetan (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 keep We many independent reliable sources discussing this movie. That it so far has not happened is not relevant to that. JoshuaZ 15:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thetan

The Thetan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nominated for deletion by S. M. Sullivan (talk · contribs) Nomination completed by Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. No rationale provided for deletion. Last AFD closed only a few months ago. Well sourced article, so WP:CRYSTAL wouldn't apply. Speculations about a possible event can be notable, and in this case seem to be. JulesH 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no rationale for deletion given. Article is sourced, crystalballing seems to be at a minimum. --Huon 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it still applies, as this is a rumored movie, with zero actual sources to show it even exists. The article itself states that Cruise's publicist denies its existence. Just because notable sources are repeating the rumor, that does not mean the supposed film is anything more than that: a rumor. Hell, we still delete movies studios have announced are in production, if no shooting has begun nor actors been formally hired. This doesn't even get that far. -- Kesh 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Have you actually read WP:CRYSTAL? It says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." This article is a discussion of whether some development will occur, and is properly referenced, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't require deletion. JulesH 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete IF this statement in the article is true: Cruise's representative claims "there’s no such project in the works." If Cruise's representative has denied these reports then how can an article be reliable? If the one person qualified to confirm this film (ie Cruise) is denying this, then its unverifiable. All the sources are referring to the original news report, not the film. Add reliable sources confirming the existence of the project, not the existence of reports about the project, and it can be kept. Crazysuit 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is reliable because it does not state that the film will be produced. It is documentation of the discussions that have taken place in the media, not an article about the film itself. The rumour itself is notable, whether or not the film is ever produced. JulesH 07:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references all date to last December and early January. Tom Cruise's IMDB bio says he's in four upcoming movies, but none about Scientology. I think that if a rumor from months ago was coming to fruition, we would have heard more about it by now. It might be entertaining if the film was produced and became as big of a bomb as Battlefield Earth, but I don't think we have that to look forward to. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per my commentary on the previous AfD for this article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hello crystal ball! I thought WP was supposed to be an encyclopedia of existing knowledge, not an stale rumor mill. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the first mention of this 'The Thetan' film was in a British tabloid, from there the story went to FOX and other RS sources, but it was still a tabloid rumor.
• Keep Looks like some cofs directed editors want to get rid of some scientology-related wikipedia articles. --Fahrenheit451 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cruise's rep has denied that any such film is in the works. There has been no press release about it. IMO it ain't worth the electrons that it took to post it. I feel sorry for the people who worked on this story, but see no point in keeping it.S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 21 August 2007 (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.