Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dare To Love Me

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 was speedy deleted by Jclemens as an article created by a banned user in violation of their ban (CSD G5). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dare To Love Me

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. No source provided that filming has resumed. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources have been added, but there still aren't any sources that filming has begun. Still fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ward3001 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep Filming "began" last year. This was confirmed and would have passed WP:NFF months ago. That it has been announced that filming has temporarily halted and will begin again is also sourced. But since this is an announcement that it will start up again in May, its kinda difficult to show it currently "filming" as that is now in the past, and the announcement of production continuing is in the future. This may be one of the "exceptions" of which the guidelines refer, where it both meets and does not meet NFF. If the article is retained now, it can always returen to AfD in 3 months if the announcements prove false. If it is deleted now, there'a gonna be a lot of work to reconstruct it after-the-fact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any reason for an "exception". Production was halted and filming has not resumed. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF still apply. And the concern "If it is deleted now, there'a gonna be a lot of work to reconstruct it after-the-fact" is nonsense. Simply create a subpage of your user page and archive the article there. Then if/when filming resumes, the article can be re-created within a matter of minutes. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The film had begun shooting in various locations. The film had passed WP:NFF. The film before, during, and after the hiatus, had and continues to have coverage which overwhelms the GNG. But thank you very much for alerting that WP:NTEMP can be so easily disregarded.... as well as can the caveat that heads EVERY guideline, "...best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", since it fails completely to either define "common sense" or explain what constitutes "an occasional exception". Thank you for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And thank you for reminding me to point out that WP:NTEMP does not apply to a film that has halted production and, since none of us can predict the future, may never resume production. As I have perused film pages on Wikipedia, I don't believe I have seen a single film (at least not a recently begun film) that has a page if filming was halted. Or does "common sense" tell us that someone can predict the future? Let's see what others think as this AfD proceeds. And if filming hasn't resumed a year or two from now and it still has coverage, please be my guest in restoring the article if it's deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not even consider trying to bring this back, not against such strong opinion. Your have been most enlightening in pointing out my ineptitude in how improperly I was interpreting guideline. Out of curiosity, what is your personal definition of "common sense and the occasional exception", and what is your interpretation of why each guideline includes that caveat? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without belaboring this point because this is not a personal talk page or chat room, I'll simply say that "common sense" tells most people that no one can predict the future. Now, if you wish to pursue further discussion of clairvoyance or precognition, please do so somewhere else. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for letting me know that any opinion or input contrary to your own is not welcome at this AfD. I was not aware that you WP:OWNed it. My error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please make any additional false insinuations on my or your talk page, as they are not relevant to this AfD. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the issue here. Delete it per WP:CRYSTAL. MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion that it will be a lot of work to reconstruct after the fact is bollocks. If the sources ever get uncovered to show that the movie really is moving forward, any admin can resurrect the article. Hell, I'd be happy to do it. Trusilver 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super, I'll be looking forward to your bringing the article back in a few weeks. Thank you for offering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, the article was initially created by User:Valerie burns in violation of her block. Second, there is no reliable source for the resumption, and the claimed timeline in the article doesn't even make sense: put on hiatus in January, but resumption announce the previous December?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.