Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thetan


 * 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 No consensus. Walton Assistance! 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Thetan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no proof that this film is actually being produced. Tom Cruise's own representative said that there was no project, while the other citations have said "this and that is reported", which is unverifiable speculation and fails WP:CRYSTAL. The above citations dispute the casting call and the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "There are published reports that the “Minority Report” star is making “The Thetan” — a flick about Scientology and is casting former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham in a key role. His rep, however, tells The Scoop that there’s no such project in the works." January 8, 2007
 * "Thankfully, Cruise's people rubbished reports he cast Posh as an alien bride in a Scientology-based film, The Thetan." January 28, 2007
 * There is no The Thetan article found at IMDb.
 * Keep - The article is sourced to (so far) (17) citations (including IMDB, and others, all cited in the References section). More will be added to expand the article.  The "denial" was reported first in a gossip column, and is most likely copied from there to the other source.  Smee 07:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Sourcing unverifiable speculation, which WP:CRYSTAL forbids, does not strengthen the case for this supposed film project. There is no explicit wording -- except from Cruise's representative and people, and we know what they've said -- about this film.  The rest have no attributable statements, just tabloid reporting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting dilemma. Information from sources (individuals), and yet printed in gossip citations, and then multiple reprints in reputable citations, but information from unattributed sources.  I would still like to hear what others think about this one.  My inclination would be to leave it and see how the article develops over time.  As an aside, thank you Erik, for being so polite throughout this discussion procedure.  Smee 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * It is the Verifiability policy that forbids unverifiable speculation. Furthermore: If speculation can be sourced to reliable sources, it isn't unverifiable.  (It still has to be shown not to be original research, e.g. that it is something that has been acknowledged by people other than its author and that has become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge, though.) Uncle G 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think unverified gossip column fodder constitutes proof of notability of an unproduced film. Nor do I think a merge to Tom Cruise is warranted, but others may disagree. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm, adding some of this sourced info to Tom Cruise is a good idea... Smee 08:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The Primary Notability Criterion requires multiple non-trivial published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All that the article shows thus far is one report by the Daily Star, and a lot of reports that begin in the form "According to a report in the Daily Star ...".  A whole lot of news services republishing the story of one newspaper does not constitute a multiplicity of works.  And that's not even addressing the issue of what reputation for fact checking and accuracy the Daily Star has. Uncle G 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a good honest and polite discussion going here. I am going to take this AFD discussion off of my watchlist.  However, I would appreciate hearing how it goes, and the only thing I would request is that respect be given to process, and that the AFD remain listed the full time.  Smee 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here - the fact of the potential production of a film as controversial as this is notable, and the potential production is being discussed by bona fide sources, even if it's all a hoax/misunderstanding and the film never actually goes into production —   irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Athough the film sounds like it might be interesting, if nothing is known about it I don't think there should be an article on it in WP. A mention of the rumor could be put in Tom's article however. Steve Dufour 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't crystalballery since the article itself effectively notes that the film isn't planned at all.  On the page are notations that the film is coming out, and then documentation of Cruise's people saying that no, nobody's even considering such a film at this time.  So the article isn't so much an article about a non-existant film, it's about something I'd never thought I'd see: a notably non-existant film.  Weird, but OK.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it warrant its own article, though? Where is the claim to notability made?  I could argue that Gears of War (film) (redirect) is more notable and has an official announcement, but it's in the Film adaptation section on its source material.  Citations for The Thetan were only multiplied to back the reporting of the film and the casting call.  If you are going with the argument that this film isn't planned at all, then this minimal information (probably 3 or 4 citations at most) should be merged to somewhere like Scientology filmography. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is possible to have an article on something that almost certainly will not take place. Although Tom might make a Scientology film, it probably wouldn't end up having that title. Steve Dufour 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of articles on things that are unlikely to take place... —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These are much more important topics. :-) Steve Dufour 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - it's not beyond the bounds of possiblity this film would be made - L Ron did write a screenplay on the topic ("Revolt in the Stars") which would presumably be the source —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't work with presumptions... and I don't understand why it's not clear that tabloid reporting on a fictional film doesn't deserve its own article. It's not comparable at all to Alien invasion, Second Coming, or Human extinction.  All these are far broader topics than these handful of gossip headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 19 May 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.