Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88

Draft:Panzer 88

Draft:Panzer 88 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Panzer 88 is an upcoming WWII supernatural action thriller film, set to begin production in early-to-mid 2011 and start filming in September 2011, with plans to complete and release the film in 2012. " yet editors keep maintaining it without reading the lead so it's not currently G13 eligible. As far as I can see this film never got out of development hell. Legacypac (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - nothing that would constitute a reason for deletion is presented in the nomination. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously old, seriously wrong? Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Me, or the draft? VQuakr (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

the draft for sure, but if you want me to call your vote wrong I'll oblige. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fun times. Anyways: "seriously old" - no, it was edited less than six months ago so G13 does not apply. "Seriously wrong" - no, that's not a reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The single edit within 6 months [1] only categorized the draft which does not exempt it from G13. I've corrected the nom. The page is seriously out if date. It's about an evidently abandoned film project. How to WP:OVERCOME that? Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERCOME is a notability essay, so your citing it in an MfD is doubly irrelevant. Also, 15 seconds of Googling would show recent activity on the subject (again, not that that's relevant to an MfD discussion). VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Snow keep  (1) Fastily deleted this draft without notice to interested parties such as previous participants in the MfD discussion in which this draft was kept.  (2) Fastily deleted this draft as an AfC submission, which it was not.  (3) Lagacypac hasn't mentioned the recent activity just within the past week regarding this movie.  (4) Nor did Legacypac do enough research to find the previous MfD that had he done so he/she would have been aware of activity in 2013.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Not required. 2. G13 applies to all Drafts now. I saw the old MfD - it does not apply to deletion under current rules. What does something 5 years ago have to do with anything? This is not a SNOW keep. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(two personal attack posts removed) Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

what the heck are you even talking about? Your statement looks like a streight up personal attack to me. WP:G13 now covers all Drafts, not just AfC submissions. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You claim this is not a snow keep without evidence; but then your nomination rather than showing research of the topic and presentation of relevant issues for the community to make a solid decision; the nomination shows the use of a curse word.  So why do you care one way or another what happens here?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Notice  On my talk page, User:Legacypac has made a demand and left a threat involving the material on this talk page if the demand is not met.  I have removed the post.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• The initial demand was directed at the questions, "::Falsification of records is never proper behavior, but I guess you don't care about that?  Why is that?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)"  However, in enacting the threat, User:Legacypac has removed a second post, and also added the assertion that each of the posts were "personal attack posts".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• indeed. Either you are suggesting I "falsified records" or someone else did. Either way, that is an unsubstantiated personal attack. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• So you don't know who is involved, which means it is unsubstantiated because...because you don't know who is involved?  No, you should withdraw from this nomination because you aren't interested in the topic of discussion, and you don't care what the outcome is...and since you haven't done the research you are unaware that this topic is currently to be found on four articles within the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand what the point of all the above posts is. Anyway, the page says this started filming in 2011. That is not correct. The page is largely sourced to facebook posts. That is not good. The page says various people are working on the project, which seems very unlikely 6 years later. The project remains in development hell according to their own facebook page. If/when this proposed film actually starts filming, then a page shoild be started. Until than this draft needs to be deleted. Currently it reads as a hoax. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Another curse word.  And you are fishing for an argument or arguments for deletion immediately after stating, "I can't understand what the point of all the above posts is".  You can't even see the article, yet you've suddenly concluded something about how it "[c]urrently...reads".  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See development hell. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the name of the article incorporates a curse word.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Notice  The draft has been restored as per [2]] at 2017-09-02T04:07:00.  I have requested restoration of the Draft talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Reasonable draft. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)