Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spike (film) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jinian 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spike (film)

 * — (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself indicates that this project very likely won't get made. Otto4711 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Crystal-balling at its finest. -- Charlene 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, intro says it all "The existence of such a project is currently in question." Budgiekiller 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is phenomenally well referenced given what it has to go with, and the article does not indicate that it will not be made. Quite the opposite. It's just taking a while because Joss is a very busy man. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the sources come from the same fansite, and all that's here is speculation, a few "we hope to do this soon"-like comments, and unsourced speculation as to cast and crew. Fails WP:NOT. If and when such a film production is actually officially announced, then the article can be recreated. 23skidoo 16:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nomination. It didn't happen and it never will happen now. Web Warlock 19:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as this gets picked up by some production company, go with it, otherwise it's just well-organized fancruft/hope. SkierRMH 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because references made thus far to the crystal ball policy seem to ignore the fact that the cited crystal ball policy makes it pretty clear that this article is acceptable. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable"?  Check.  "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"?  Check.  "Provided that discussion is properly referenced"?  Check.  "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented"?  Check.  Wikipedia policy does not forbid articles about anticipated events, as long as that anticipated event is held to the same standards of verifiability and notability that other articles are held to. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the 12 sources listed for the article, six of them are from Whedonesque.com which is "a community weblog discussing the work of TV maker Joss Whedon. Anyone can post a story or comment to this site, as long as it pertains to Joss Whedon's work." These are not reliable sources. Another is claimed to be from TV Guide but is in fact another post from Whedonesque.com. The Wizarduniverse.com source doesn't mention this project specifically, merely that "certain [unnamed] characters" are being "saved." The TVguide.com source is apparently dead. The few remaining sources all say in one way or another that this film will not be made. This isn't well-documented, this isn't properly referenced and it's not expected ever to happen by the people who would be directly involved so it's not legitimately an "anticipated" event. Otto4711 05:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete inadequately sourced article about film that will not be made. Doczilla 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If all the references out there were secondary and there was no primary source to be had, this would merely be speculation, and mere speculation is deletable. That the Whedonesque.com sources are secondary, quoting primary sources, knocks them down a notch in reliable source standards.  It does not, however, prevent one from traversing out to the primary sources and verifying that a movie, of this topic and proposed name, has been in discussion and planning by Whedon and crew.  This clearly and easily passes the "Is it real or not?" credibility test once those sources are reviewed, which is the most important part of the speculation / crystal ball policies.  Georgewilliamherbert 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." Pretty clear-cut. A message on a blog to the effect of "I heard Amy Acker say this at a con" is worthless as a source. Stripped of the material that's sourced with non-sources and the speculation, the article would read that there was a movie suggested about Spike, that James Marsters said in passing in an interview he'd play it if it happened within five years and that no one who would be primarily involved in the film thinks it's going to be made. Not even remotely close to meeting basic standards of inclusion. Otto4711 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it would be better to source some of those Whedonesque posts (where Joss and company are known to post and comment anyway) to their actual sources, this doesn't meet the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Part of the crystal ball policy says "notable and almost certain to take place" the article itself says the project now will not get made, and speculation is not notable. Thousands of projects "alomost" get done, only ones in process or complete should be noted. Web Warlock 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the crytal ball standard not because it likely won't get made, but rather because it was a well-reported film that never quite took off, and has a fairly important addition to the larger Buffyverse because of that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete —  It's referenced well, but that lead basically asks for a deletion. Wizardman  18:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Addhoc 20:48, 14 January 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.