Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Story of Bonnie and Clyde

 __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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈  04:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Story of Bonnie and Clyde


Draft from January 2010 that went through the article incubator program until it came here. IMDb still lists the film as "in development" three years after the last bit of press (about the loss of the lead) which indicates that it may have been shelved. As such, this is never going to become an article in the foreseeable future and should be deleted per WP:WEBHOST. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's funny, I want to say keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL, even though this article would thoroughly fail CRYSTALBALL were it in the mainspace. All the same, I feel like the spirit of CRYSTALBALL is kind of reversed in draftspace, i.e. don't delete a potentially useful draft based on a prediction that it won't be useful. Movies get shelved for years, even decades. If it does ever get made, this draft will be a useful source of info+sources on its early production. A2soup (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The actual title of WP:WEBHOST is, "Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site".  Since none of these apply, it appears that there is no rational connection between the nomination and a coherent deletion argument.  The nomination is also based on speculation, ("may have been shelved").  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NODEADLINE. The information in this draft comes from reliable sources, and would be useful for any article dealing with portrayals of this couple even in the case that the film is never done. The content has the potential to be used at other places, such as a future expansion and WP:SPLIT to Bonnie and Clyde, and is therefore protected by that policy. This is exactly the reason why it makes sense to allow potential viable articles to stay in Draft space forever, or at least until their content is merged to a proper place, maybe one or two centuries from now. This is a long-term project, right? Diego (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 17:34, 20 February 2016 (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.