Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirates of the Caribbean 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. —Korath (Talk) 13:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Article about the second sequel to the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. Delete as unverifiable because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not even the title is known. The imdb listing says "Since this project is categorized as being in production, the data is subject to change; some data could be removed completely." Many movies have reached this stage and been cancelled, so it is not even certain that the movie will ever be completed or released. We should have an article about it when it is released, not before. Wikipedia is not Variety. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl; maybe mention the plans for it there, maybe not. It really doesn't matter. I'm going to list that stupid little three-article template for deletion too. There's a category, for Christ sake. Postdlf 00:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect agree with Postdlf. There appears to be some certainty about this film's production.--ZayZayEM 02:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. There's nothing wrong with having articles on films not yet in production (see Casino Royale (2006 movie), but there's it's a bit early to have an article on a sequel to a sequel that has yet to come out. 23skidoo 05:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is in Pre-production (see the article's external link), which means that it exists enough to have an imdb.com entry and therefore a WP entry (at least for such a notable franchise). Even if it never gets made it is still notable. Paradiso 05:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep notable movies in pre-production. Kappa 06:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Megan1967 07:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to discourage recreation. And burn that template - David Gerard 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you want to discourage recreation? Kappa 09:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per WP:WIN a crystal ball. Radiant_* 13:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect as per above. VladMV ٭ talk 17:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the film is in production, so it's actually happening as we write. Also, as more details about the film become available this article will grow. Oliver Keenan 18:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. If the movie becomes a reality and more info is added, it can be moved back out into its own page. --Fuzzball! 22:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect or merge pure speculation. RickK 23:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete speculative article and that damned template.--Calton | Talk 00:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Commment: I can understand the desire not to see the title redirect, but surely information regarding the possibility of a sequel is information that can be included in the text of the original Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl as further information about the movie? If the info proves to be incorrect, the page can be updated later with it removed. --Fuzzball! 03:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What's the rush? Why are people so anxious to jump the gun and write articles that cannot be more than unverifiable guesses? Is it like Slashdot "First post" or something like that? Why do we need any material on this until it is a well-established fact? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand your point of view. However, when dealing with something in pop culture, isn't information like the indisputable presence of a rumour (unconfirmed by definition) for a 3rd movie information that those who would look up such an article be interested in? If you can agree to that, then I think you can agree to a merge of the documents. --Fuzzball! (talk) 22:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree to that. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumors and gossip site. RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, well let's ask another question then. Since when did movies become encyclopaedic anyway? I can't remember any other encyclopaedia that I've looked at listing them. Then there is this idea that anything remotely rumour- like in nature can't exist here. By your standards I would think that an article on the graviton is unacceptable. I mean the article itself states "Detecting a graviton, if it exists, would prove rather problematic." Not much chance of any proof in the near future but I doubt (or at least I severely hope) that no one would consider deleting that article. Anyway, my point is that some unproven info has a place here. --Fuzzball! (talk) 02:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree to that. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumors and gossip site. RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I can definitely understand your point of view. However, when dealing with something in pop culture, isn't information like the indisputable presence of a rumour (unconfirmed by definition) for a 3rd movie information that those who would look up such an article be interested in? If you can agree to that, then I think you can agree to a merge of the documents. --Fuzzball! (talk) 22:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What's the rush? Why are people so anxious to jump the gun and write articles that cannot be more than unverifiable guesses? Is it like Slashdot "First post" or something like that? Why do we need any material on this until it is a well-established fact? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, since the two sequels are purportedly being filmed simultaneously. There isn't enough here yet to warrant a full article. Oh, and get rid of that damn template, too. Firebug 09:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can you document that? RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Here is an article discussing this matter. It does appear that this is still in the "likely, but not confirmed" stage. I wouldn't particularly object to deletion - but the article will probably wind up being re-created a year or so down the road when more details come out. Firebug 07:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can you document that? RickK 04:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't even consider all released films appropriate for encyclopedia articles. Pre-release, everything we have is unverified. Recreate it after it's been released and made an impact. No future events. Rossami (talk) 04:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless article about a notable film. Xezbeth 12:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- It is not a notable film. This film does not exist, and there is no veriable proof that it will ever exist. RickK 21:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- If you believe what's being said, then they'll be released about 6 months apart in 2006, and production of both sequels will be back-to-back. If this sequel does fold however, then it doesn't take much to delete it afterwards and not before. Xezbeth 05:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- It is not a notable film. This film does not exist, and there is no veriable proof that it will ever exist. RickK 21:40, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect. No concrete information yet exists about this hypothetical sequel. -Sean Curtin 23:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect DDerby 18:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect --Wgfinley 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.