Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeborn (intended movie)

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeborn (intended movie)

This is a film proposal. Jonathan F 05:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Umm... if you don't mind me asking, WTF!? tmopkisn ^tlka 06:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind actually. Delete per nom. R.E. Freak 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with rotten tomatoes, because that link goes to a forum. ~ trialsanderrors 06:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intend to Delete guess what's not a crystal ball? Danny Lilithborne 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (A werewolf movie made right, as designed by guys on the internet? Yeah, that'll be great.) -- Captain Disdain 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WTF?. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: - Its notability isnt that its a possible movie. Its notability is its unusual nature within film-making, and its unusual community, which is fact and notable at this point in time. That's the issue. Citing "crystal ball" as a reason shows a slight misunderstanding why the article exists. The project (whether or not a movie comes of it) is already notable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, WP:CIVIL. --Jonathan F 09:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find verifiable documentation in a major source that the movement per FT2 has garnered some attention beyond simply its own community. 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serpent's Choice (talk • contribs) 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Which is the correct standard and if it is, will be supported by sources (with the minor caveat that the source/s need to be sufficiently reputable to be credible, and must show significant notability in the world beyond its own fan base). Agreed this would then be the appropriate basis for forming a view. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No credible sources, in the future. The fact that maybe someday, in the future, this film might be made in an interesting way doesn't make it good enough. --PresN 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone re: crystal-ballism. Also, I don't see the viral marketing as that unique these days, if I were inclined to try hang notability on that issue. Tychocat 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal-ballism and no outside citations. --DarkAudit 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 'provisional name given to an upcoming proposed werewolf film'. --Nydas 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- Whpq 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing a film that actually gets made and released in collaboration with a web forum may be notable, but just writing the outline of the script in collaboration with a web forum is not. --Metropolitan90 03:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.