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 merge to Jackass 3D. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass 3.5

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot independently verify that this film will actually be produced; violates WP:CRYSTAL. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources as of yet for the film and likely a too early release date in the first place (it's more likely the third film will hit DVD in February or late January more than mid or early January). Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Many sources easily available to those who look.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several hit the Net after my nomination (it happens), but I'll agree that it is independently verifiable now. A merge with J3 is probably the best option. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another case where sources popped up after the nomination, so I change my vote to Redirect & Merge. Nate • (chatter) 08:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Jackass 3D much as Jackass 2.5 is part of the larger Jackass 2. The film, has completed principle filming and is currently in post-production for a Christmas 2010 DVD release.[2][3][4][5] Film meets WP:NF and coverage passes WP:GNG. Paramount is even considering a theatrical release.[6] Had this been pre-production, I might have offered a delete per WP:TOOSOON... but as principle filming is completed and the film is now in post-production and IS getting coverage in multiple reliable sources, what benefits the project is it being improved through course of regular editing. Sure... the article is currently an unsourced stub, but it IS an easily sourcable stub... and the stub can be merged, expanded and improved per numerous available sources.[7] No need to flatly delete what can be so readily corrected to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As is said above, several of these sources were posted after my nomination. (I was also without a computer for a couple of days, thanks to a nice burglar or two.) I tend to favor a merge and redirect now. Admins, feel free to close if you wish. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either move or redirect but the move has been confirmed and it might be released to theaters due to the box office success of jackss 3D. to the mods and admins not everything requires a sledgehammer to fix --F4280 (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Jackass 2.5 has a article why shouldnt this dvd have one? Portillo (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't. Jackass 2.5 is currently in a subsection of Jackass 2. See Jackass 2#Jackass 2.5. That's why I opined as I did above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote merge then. Portillo (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2010 (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.