Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceballs 2

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 of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 04:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spaceballs 2

Crystal ball. This movie is nowhere near far enough along to be definite. Ace of Sevens 07:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. — Mike •  11:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete total cystal ballism. It's basically an article that consists of two things mel brooks has been reported as been doing. Not films existance isint exactly the most verifable of things. Ydam 12:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't see any crystal balling, as all the stuff on the page is taken from its sources. As for if the movie is far enough along to be definite, that can't be said. Mel Brooks has been keeping very tight lipped about the whole thing, which suggest that he has something. If SB2 wasn't coming out, he would have said as much. JQF 12:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that is all speculation on your part though. It's not verfiable Ydam 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All the content is taken from other sources, but they're pretty much rumor mills. Fan1967 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Besides the title's incorrect it SHOULD be "Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money" Wildthing61476 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rumors do not belong on WP —Mets501^talk 15:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is evidence that the sequel is at some level of production; it may have been postponed while he works on the musical version of Young Frankenstein, but that doesn't mean that the project is completely dead. EVula 18:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As correctly asserted above, this article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball guidelines, and also does not provide sufficient verifiability. Justinpwilsonadvocate 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mel Brooks. (He's denied it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A quick perusal doesn't turn up anything to support the claim that he's denied it; source? EVula 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't have a reliable source, but there's no reliable source for the proposed film, so we're even. ;-) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Zing Touché. However, there is a reliable source: Mel Brooks himself. Yes, this is from 2004, but this is why I said that as long as it is at some level of production, it should be kept. EVula 20:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course, the lack of activity since then might suggest that there's nothing happening. His wife died, he's been busy with other projects. No reason to believe this one's active. Fan1967 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No reason to believe that it isn't active, either. EVula 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • So we should keep it because it might be?? Fan1967 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Surely the burdan of proof lies with those trying to claim it is active though? I mean if we started keeping articles because we couldn't proove the weren't notable rather than keeping them because we could proove they were the whole system would quickly fall apart Ydam 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If we can squeeze out the crystal ball-ism, then what is actually verifiable might be able to stand on its own. It's worth a shot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• What is actually verifiable is that Brooks once talked about writing a sequel. That's it. No studio, no budget, no shooting schedule, nothing else. Fan1967 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are so. many. films. that are floating around in various stages of pre-production; the vast majority of them never make it to the screen. No need for articles on them until they are cast, in filming, and with a production budget. Aguerriero (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect. This deserves perhaps a few sentences in the Spaceballs article, but certainly not its own article unless this goes beyond being a figment in Mel Brooks' mind. Ameltzer 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally lacks WP:Verifiability. Equendil Talk 19:59, 10 June 2006 (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.