Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight Hours Gone (2008) 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 was speedy delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eight Hours Gone (2008) film


Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Page full of rumors, nothing verifiable. The "rumored release" isn't for 3 years. Contested prod by author. Leuko 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a real film. The film is being partially shot next month and in the months to come. Please do not delete this page. Thank you and it would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndySawFan (talk • contribs).
 * Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete IMDb has never heard of the movie or the "new and upcoming" director. The IMDb page for Robin Williams does not mention this movie. No relevent ghits. Without any sources to back it up, this looks very hoax-y to me.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't hoax-y i have sent updates to Imdb and the director is being added to the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andysawfan (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, and you need verifiable, third-party sources to back your claims up. Right now there aren't any, we can't find any, so therefore it is not verifiable and must be deleted. It might not be a hoax, but, without sources, it sure looks like one.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * cant you just leave it and i add source links as soon as imdb updates them. And why did you guys delete saw IV, that film has been confirmed.
 * No, we can't, for the same reason sav IV was deleted - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * why does this need links to other sites... im submitting this true info to this site, should'nt you be happy... i haven't shard the info with other sites yet?
 * Because with no way of verifying that the information in this article is fact, we have no way of distinguishing it from the mountains of crap that flow through Articles for deletion. We can believe the media or film databases, we can't beileve individual editors such as you or myself. Try reading the verifiability policy, it'll enlighten you further.  Ultra-Loser  Talk / Contributions 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's still predicting the future. --Wafulz 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete for lack of verification and for crystal-balling. NB: will the respondee to the comments please sign with four tildes as your lack of identity does nothing to improve your chance of being taken seriously. Eddie.willers 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also cannot find any evidence of Partners in Crime Entertainment
 * Delete, per above and due to its largely speculative nature. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, very likely to be a hoax. --Ter e nce Ong (C 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you wish to apply the 'crystal ball' guideline to movies, then nominate every film yet-to-be-released en masse. -Toptomcat 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is not so much the crystal-balling as the movie is completely unverfiable (and a probable hoax).. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We regularly apply the crystal ball policy to movies. The most common cases are where editors build articles about further movies in series or unannounced sequels to movies, based upon nothing more than wishful thinking on the parts of fans, or even their own wishful thinking. Conversely, if you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds any water, you are going to have to cite sources to counter the charge that this article is unverifiable.  Because at the moment the answer to the question "Says who?" when it comes to this article is little more than "Says a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and no-one else.". Uncle G 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The crystal ball gets rolled out for games as well, but we try to keep content down to verified sources. Robovski 02:50, 8 November 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.