Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (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 Delete -- JForget  00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Announced film which has yet to enter production (and may not for some time). Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, wait until it at least enters production and has a reliable source (i.e., not IMDB). -- Kinu t /c  04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the notability guidelines for future films... this project has been perpetually in development for a good length of time, with no indication of active production on the horizon. No prejudice against recreation if production ever begins, and if Lincoln is even the title of it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Kinu and Erik mentioned, film guidelines dictate that articles on future films cannot be created until the film enters production.-- TBC !?!  04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete I redirected this article again, after some IP restored without good reason. The film is not shooting for a long time, especially since Spielberg is working on Crystal Skull and Tintin. Alientraveller (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can just remove the AFD template and redirect it again. It should have been redirected in the first place, but now the AFD needs to play out. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was bordering on suggesting putting the redirect back in, but with production so far off, it's probably better to delete it now under WP:NFF. If there's no content to go back to in the history (even that one stubby paragraph), it might help to dissuade editors from recreating it at the drop of a hat. Steve  T • C 13:49, 6 March 2008 (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.