Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 (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.

[edit] 1906 (film)

The result was Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, due to the film's 2009 release date, insufficient reliable sources (rumors in Time magazine are not enough). Also, there is scant information on the IMdB page to verify (even assuming that it may be reliable sometimes) that the film is actually going to be made, that it has a plot, or that it is in production. This closing is made without any prejudice to a re-creation of the article after a few months' time, and confirmation of important details, as noted. Bearian 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1906 (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:CRYSTAL - article is a recreation based entirely on rumors from fan sites - no reliable confirmation or sources from Disney/Pixar/Bird. "Reference" only mentions rumor, no confirmation. If the film does come to be, then by all means I'm for recreation, but for now, this is clearly WAY too early to have a page based on a rumor posted on a fan site. Delete MikeWazowski 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Comment: False nomination. Article is sourced in Time Magazine. Please read carefully before making hasty moves. —scarecroe 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Not sure about above comment. Where on the page is there a source to Time Mag? Anyways, article based on rumor and speculation. Agree with nominator; Violates WP:CRYSTAL. This article should never have been recreated (as of now). - Rjd0060 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Again, there is no violation. Information comes from Time Magazine. Pick up a copy and read it. —scarecroe 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now While the one external source seems to quote Time, it is missing a key piece, a release date. No prejudice towards recreation once more info is known.--Sethacus 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Pixar until more reliable sources write about the film. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Just needs to be tagged properly. The film is listed as 'in production' on IMDB with Brad Bird as the director, and that's enough to satisfy me. Wstaffor 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This article is in no way sourced by Time magazine. The provided reference (a blog, mind you) mentions an article in Time (which can be read here, and *some* of the entries in that blog post reference the article, but not the entry for 1906. There is no mention of 1906 in the article, and according to a post on a separate blog, these references came from magazine specific material, which ALSO do not mention 1906, as discussed here. I would suggest that scarecroe, as he so eloquently commented, pick up the magazine and read it himself before telling me something is there which clearly isn't. Also, the IMDB is not always accurate, especially on future releases - they have been known on many times to post rumored cast and crew lists, as this info *is* by and large submitted by the general public. MikeWazowski 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Once again, the Wikipedia bullies come out in force. I no longer have that issue of Time magazine, but I read the article myself. The linked time.com article is not the same as what's referenced on Slashdot. —scarecroe 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I wasn't aware that presenting the facts was bullying. And your reading comprehension is truly astounding - the article I linked to is without a doubt the one mentioned in the referenced link, which by the way is on Slashfilm, not Slashdot - they're two completely unrelated websites. Had you actually read my comment above, you would also have noticed that the Upcoming Pixar link reprints the magazine-only section, which does not mention 1906. I have no doubt that you mistakenly believe you actually read something in Time that backs you up, but the evidence does not support your claim. MikeWazowski 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: So far by the looks of this discussion, the user who is against the deletion (the creator) does not want to discuss any valid points that anybody makes. This article probably would have met CSD as stated below, but for some reason it was AfD'd again instead. There will be no problem recreating this article if/when there are reliable sources with confirmed information about the film. In addition, Scarecroe, accusations of bad faith reverts and warnings are disruptive. You are clearly violating policies by removing deletion templates, and that doesn't help this process, and certainly doesn't help your case in defending this article. - Rjd0060 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G4. This article was already deleted after a valid AfD. No further verification has been provided. Dean Wormer 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, possible Speedy per WP:SNOW. Only source is a blog-style posting, no reliable sources cited. -- Kesh 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pixar The TIME archive has no reference to the movie. It already has what little info there is in the Pixar article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment...it all seemed pretty iffy...then I found this. Still looks like WP:CRYSTAL. Smashville 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Stumbled on this through random links. Found the info through a quick search on imdb for Brad Bird, here. It's a real movie, but it's not coming out until 2009, apparently. Also, Brad Bird confirmed it here, so I don't really see why it wouldn't have an article... Bouncehoper 07:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Neither of those links work.--Sethacus 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment IMDB isn't a source. And my server won't allow me to access youtube, although the above poster says that link does not work. Smashville 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I fixed the links; they were just formatted improperly. I didn't look at the YouTube link, however, the IMDB link seems to only confirm our deletion reasoning, and that is WP:CRYSTAL as the IMDB article says "Because this project is categorized as being in production ... some data could be removed completely.". - Rjd0060 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh, I see. Thanks for fixing the links. I'm surprised, though, that IMDB isn't a source. I'm pretty sure it is, as we link it on so many pages. If it wasn't a good source, why is it on pretty much every show/movie page? Bouncehoper 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Well, IMO, IMDB should never be used as a primary source. I would only use it to back up something from a more notable source. So in this case, I would say IMDB is not proper. Maybe you could review the information concerning IMDB on the 1st AfD nomination of this page. There is a link towards the top of this discussion. - Rjd0060 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Fredrick day 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or Merge with an appropriate article. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as recreation and crystal balling. IF anything is ever covered by a reliable source the article can be recreated. Nuttah68 19:15, 1 October 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.