Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin City 3: Hell and Back
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sin City 3: Hell and Back
This article violates WP:NOT: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". The subject matter of this article is not verifiable in any way, IMDB is not even close to a reliable source. This film is not in production, and probably will not be made for several years, if it is made at all. Sin City 2 itself will probably not be filmed until The Spirit is finished, which is some way off yet [1]. Do we really need an article on a film that has not been green-lit, and is a hypothetical sequel to a film that more than likely will not be released until 2009? Unless anyone can provide a single veriable source that this film is being made, it should be deleted. Rje 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per this -- "[Sin City 3] hasn't been discussed yet," says Deneen. "We'll probably have to see how Sin City 2 goes first, but I assume it will go forward knowing the appetite for the franchise and also the fact that the first one did so well." Lack of clear aim for production of Sin City 3 also violates crystal ball policy. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Erik. People are really trying to rush these film pages. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Way way way premature. Recreate once production of the film has actually been officially announced. 23skidoo 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per erikster, who found the same citation I did, LOL. ThuranX 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I remember hearing they were only planning two, and without official announcements, this is completely unverified crystal ball. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Was already announced, keep it. Kris Classic 17:30, 16 March 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.
