Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varjak Paw (film)

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 discussion was keep. Mailer Diablo 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varjak Paw (film)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - A disputed prod. Gay Cdn 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm the contributor who contested the prod, and my reasons remain valid: "The Crystal Ball policy states that articles must be verifiable- the sources provided in the article provide that verification; the article doesn't contain speculation ungrounded in statements by the persons involved. It next states that to merit inclusion, the subject matter would have to merit an article, assuming it actually occurs. There is a fairly good history of including major studio films in Wikipedia, and Varjak Paw will be a major studio film." All of the statements in the article come from the Jim Henson Company press release (duplicated off site, which can be confirmed with a trivial Google search) and Movie Insider. Captainktainer * Talk 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, Crystal Ballisms are things that can not be proved to exist and are like "hopefully (insert name) will aprove and it will win a million dollars." Also, it appears to meet notability by having both a notable person and book involved in it. Yanksox 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable. Major project of a notable film studio. What's the problem? dryguy 21:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the consensis is I have misapplied the crystal ball, no problem; but my take on reading the press release was that the book was only optioned (along with the second book); also the cast has yet to be anounced as per the article - while the reputation of those involved is not in question, if this film will be made and released is (in my opinion).--Gay Cdn 21:57, 6 July 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.