Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (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 merege/redirect. W.marsh 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (film)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No recent production news. Article can be recreated if production ever actually gets underway. Film information already merged at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia may not be a Crystal ball, but the information on this series is not speculation from Wikipedia members, but announcements that were presumably derived from existing sources such as IGN. As far as it goes, I wouldn't mind merging, but I don't see that it would really help, since it'd have to be recreated anyway.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reason that film articles get deleted for crystal balling is that we can't guarantee a film will be made. We don't keep articles of project announcements around just in case one day it finally takes off.  It can't be for certain that the film will come around again, so a recreation may never happen anyway. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Even if it were never made, I'd say given that there is information from reputable sources out there (such as Variety), I would say that Wikipedia shold have information on it anyway. Either it would be "This movie happened" or "This movie was planned, but it didn't happen" and both should be on Wikipedia, given the circumstances (Of course a Jerry Bruckheimer film is going to get an article, even if it wasn't a fairly notable franchise).  At the most, you might convince me of a merge, but this is AfD, not a proposal to merge.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the plot section needs to be verified or deleted but the remaining information about production has been confirmed by the IGN and IMDB link. Mitaphane talk 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please read why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and about notability with unreleased films. The "event" (making/release of the film) is not certain to take place, and the film has not entered production, instead being "expected to be made".  There is no assurance whatsoever that production is underway (IGN citation in the article is from March 4, 2004). --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have, from WP:NOT "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Everything in the article (now that I've killed the unverified plot section) has now been properly referenced. —Mitaphane talk 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thus why it's OK to have something like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. The sentence you quoted was to indicate that information about future proposals and projects don't have to be disregarded outright.  It doesn't mean that it's OK to create an article about a film just because there's been an announcement to make a film. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does it? WP:NOT doesn't say where information about expected future events can be placed. It does say forward looking articles about games, movies, etc. require special care not to be advertising but that's about it. If you want to propose a merge and redirect this article to the PoP:SoT that's one thing, but that isn't a matter of deletion. In fact, if the information in this article violates WP:NOT it shouldn't be on the PoP:SoT article either. —Mitaphane talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time per Erik. Pre-production films shouldn't have articles with rare exceptions. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: It does not exist.  When it exists, it still won't be notable (although it is likely to be).  When it exists, is released, and is reviewed, then it will be time for a tertiary account here.  Geogre 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time per Erik and Dhartung if verifiably sourced. It can have its own article when the film is in production. --Alan Au 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete Wasn't this nominated before? I'm sure I saw it here in AfD. TJ Spyke 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dhartung. Danny Lilithborne 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and re-create when actors have been confirmed and cast, Derktar 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Keep, do not merge, per above. WP:NOT doesn't qualify, as this article meets the standard for future events. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge appears to be verifiable but until it is actually in production a mention on the source material's page is more appropirate than a full article. Eluchil404 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or at worst, merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is official policy, does not seem to apply because the information has been properly referenced as something that is likely to happen in the not too distant future and has verifiable details available about it, and that is likely to be notable once it happens (a theatrically released film by a major director). Notability of unreleased films (a section of Notability (films)) is a rough guidline, not an official policy, but even so it is worded in such a way as to leave this article either in a gray area or in a "probably keep" area. Also, has a more recent (2006) mention by the director that the film is expected to be made. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:51, 31 October 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.