Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Shadow Run (film)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. As with Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Panzer_88, consensus is that draftspace is intended for the development of articles that have a reasonable chance of being moved to mainspace. As this film has been indefinitely postponed, there is no reasonable chance of this being completed and moved to mainspace. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Shadow Run (film)

 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned draft about a proposed film. Legacypac (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * DELETE Would fail WP:NFF if this were in mainspace. No objection to re-creation when movie starts filming Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:NFF is a notability criterion, which does not apply in draft space per WP:NMFD. Plausible topic. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NMFD is no policy, just a poorly summarized conclusion to a very leading RFC posted on a help page. Anyone quoting it as a reason not to delete is misguided in their effort. This film is stuck in deleopmemt hell amd does not need a shadow encyclopidia page.  Legacypac (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC was held at WT:N, which is the talk page of the relevant guideline - not a help page. The text of that RfC query was "Do notability guidelines apply to drafts in userspace or draftspace?" - about as unleading as it could possibly be. Your repeated claim that there was something underhanded about the RfC that justifies your ignoring it is quite spurious. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NMFD. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've undone a NAC because the conclusion is based on a vote that should be struck. I'd request that an Admin close this. Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin note - I would have also closed this as no consensus. 's close was within the discretion allowed by WP:NAC, and non-admin closes should not be reverted just because the closer is not an administrator. Your rationale that "the conclusion is based on a vote that should be struck" is spurious, and apparently based on your opinion of the RfC you refer to above. However, since there have been subsequent comments, I'm going to relist this properly. Please refrain from reverting closes you don't agree with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I support NACs. I undid the close because the close was wrong and this involves continuous issues. Ivan you misunderstabd the intent of my comment, but I can't expand on that point. Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Not notable, not worked on. No need to keep forever. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (as relister) per WP:CRYSTAL, the criterion usually cited in deletion of articles on films which are not in production, as there's no indication that this film has done anything beyond a studio purchasing rights nearly four years ago. Drafts are meant to be development areas for pages intended to be articles, but there's no potential for an article on this topic at this time. Note also that Shadow Run (film) exists, but is about a different film. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ivanvector. Abandoned draft, highly unlikely that it will be finished. Miles Edgeworth Objection! 00:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Didn't happen.  Indefinitely postponed.  Current information on the page is no longer true.  In the meantime, coverage is appropriate at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3534678/, but is not anywhere on Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.