Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Geniuses 3


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Baby Geniuses 3

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Outside of its listing at Crystal Sky's website, there is virtually no mention of actual production news -- no screenwriter, no director, no cast. The film cannot be guaranteed to be made, and if the film ever enters production, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the arrow of time. When and if the movie is released it can have an article. Until then it is speculation about a subject that is sure to not be the subject of non-trivial treatment in multiple, independent reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Also, the fact that the entire article plagarizes the website that it cites doesn't help it any either.  BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Purely speculative. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure speculation. And Baby Geniuses 2 was "incredibly successful"? Thunderbunny 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystal balling with no predjudice against recreation if and when such a film is announced (and since there were multiple Air Bud and Look Who's Talking films, it's not impossible to imagine). 23skidoo 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without predjudice toward recreation. Fundamental Dan 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)  I should clarify recreation with sources when it meets WP:NOTABILITY Fundamental Dan 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Crystalballery.  No prejudice at this time to recreation, provided proper references.  --Dennisthe2 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Upgrated to Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Text on the article is a duplicate of the Crystal Sky website's text. --Dennisthe2 09:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystalballism at this point.-- danntm T C 02:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I've contacted Crystal Sky, asking to do a Wikinews article on the movie. If they provide enough indication this is in development, then it's keepable. --  Zanimum 16:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't remove the speedy delete tag. Follow the instructions in the tag. (Struck out previous statement; was under impression that tag was not supposed to be removed.) There has been virtually no mention of this film's development in the press -- the "development" phase is not enough.  Many films spend their time in what's called development hell, and being in development is not a guarantee that the film will be made. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 17 February 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.