Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shrek 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article about a movie in the storyboard stage. Incomprehensible. Will probably become a real article once the movie is released two years down the road, but the current article there is ridiculous. Yelyos 03:34, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • Moved to speedy delete. Even if that movie were released that article shouldn't stand. Incomprehensible drivel. -R. fiend 04:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've stubified it. Andrewa 07:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, they haven't even written the thing yet. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cookiecaper 07:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has obviously satisfied someone in adding another article, but until it is made (and if it is made - anything could happen) this does not even warrant a stub. Dainamo 10:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into a redirect to Shrek or perhaps Dreamworks SKG. See Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products. Brief mentions of verifiable information regarding statements of future plans could properly appear in, most appropriately, Dreamworks SKG, where it is already listed as a film in production, or Shrek, to which it is a planned sequel. Such information could also be mentioned in articles about Jeffrey Price or Peter S. Seaman or Jon Zack or Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz. There should not be entire articles about things that do not yet exist. For one thing, in the case of things that will soon be announced, this lends Wikipedia to the cause of promoting or creating "buzz" about them. For another, no facts about the future are verifiable. Wikipedia is not a Hollywood gossip column. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • P. S. Such a merge and redirect could and should have been done by anyone. There was no need to bring this to VfD. There's nothing much wrong with the article except its having been created as a main entry. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Articles on things that do not exist - well, I'm not in favour of that as a blanket rule, since we already have articles on things that we know are going to exist (e.g. 2008 Summer Olympics). Given the high profits of the first two films, it's highly likely to be made, but any article should only state clear and verifiable facts, not Hollywood gossip. But I'd say it doesn't deserve an article until they actually start filming, so merge. Average Earthman 10:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, now that you mention it, don't you think 2008 Summer Olympics really should be entitled 2008 Summer Olympic Plans or something of the sort? But I'm not going on any personal crusade about this. A lot of my feelings regard what I perceive as either a) attempts to use Wikipedia to create buzz, promote, and give credibility to upcoming things, or b) an egotistical interest in articles rather than adding to existing articles. Just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • No, not really. I'm quite happy with the 2008 Summer Olympics link as it is, but we should be very strict on this sort of thing. If something is one of a major series of things that are guaranteed to happen, such as the Olympics or a US presidential election, then we can have a page on it before it actually happens. Major (and I mean really major) products should also have an article beforehand, but only if really, really important (e.g. Windows Longhorn or Playstation 3) and significant work is already underway. Basically things so significant they don't need Wikipedia to hype them up. Average Earthman 14:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've made Shrek 3 into a redirect to Shrek and inserted a very slightly reworded version of the previous Shrek 3 content into Shrek#Sequels. Entire previous content is shown below: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Shrek 3 is a sequel to the highly successful Shrek and Shrek 2, planned for release in 2006.
As of August 2004, the only announced members of the crew were the writing team of Jeffrey Price, Peter S. Seaman and Jon Zack, and the three lead voices from the previous movies, Mike Myers as Shrek, Eddie Murphy as the donkey, and Cameron Diaz as Princess Fiona.
External Links: IMDB entry

I can live with this solution. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree; Shrek 3 should exist, and it should redirect to Shrek. Which it does. Keep.
  • Redirect and move information as stated. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain articles that are News reports. This policy is too much ignored. Jallan 14:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: So what's 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season and Hurricane Charley? :) --Golbez 16:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Exactly. They are up-to-the-date news reports or articles very, very close to being that. Where exactly you draw the line is debatable and perhaps should be debated. For me, making a separate article out of an official studio announcements about a proposed film planned for release two years from now is definitely over the line for an article. Jallan 20:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I consider the news report style on those articles to merely be an artifact of trying to write about them in real time. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

            A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.) When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now.

            News report sytle is likely to be an artifact of an article actually being a news report. If you can't write it as an encyclopedia article, if the results sound like a news report, then you are probably going against the above. Tidbits about future films are mostly nothing but news reports on very slowly breaking stories. There is a fine line here, and I can see why people can honestly disagree on which side of the line an article belongs and can vote accordingly. Jallan 00:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete future movie. Rossami 00:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As redirect if best. --Dittaeva 11:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)