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 no consensus. In any case, this article is going to be kept. But with the number of outstanding "delete" votes, we can't be sure that they all want to change their opinion, so I'll just say NC to be safe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass Number 3

[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing but WP:OR - failed ((prod)) after sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently they plan to film this one in 3D. Once it's actually done, feel free to recreate the article with the film's actual name. Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-quite-yet-ready for primetime. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film may become notable once it is released, but there is no evidence that the production of it has achieved notability. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to neutral since a number of sources have been added. Some of the coverage is marginal (e.g., MTV, which is not an independent source in this case), but the situation has improved enough to move me away from recommending deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed title is actually Jackass 3D, and we can create it when it actually has more details than the equivalent of 'OMG did you see this Johnny and the gang is back EEEEEE!!' Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep As I expected a windfall of sources came out this week and have been added to the article, so the standard of WP:N#FILMS has now been met. Great job on the rescue, Him6969etc... Nate • (chatter) 12:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Jackass 3D. Star of the movie confirmed its production.[1] According to moviefone, Paramount issued a press release that it will be released October 15, 2010.[2] MTV says the movie will be in 3D.[3] The BBC says the director has been doing camera tests.[4] Hence, many sources and confirmation about its production. See:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added this information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with "Him69696969696969". The movie has been confirmed on the official jackass "blog" and by Paramount now. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion was valid when it was put forth, but the subject of the article has crossed the threshold for inclusion while the AfD was running. I urge the closing admin to take that into account and either relist this or just disregard earlier comments. Gigs (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update in the last two days more information about its production has been released. I added some information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The article has been expanded with references. However, I am still having problems in deciding whether this makes it notable enough to bypass the CRYSTAL. --Tone 15:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Him69696969696969's expansion. WossOccurring (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was nominated for deletion when it was in really bad shape, but has been expanded to show confirmation of this project with several news stories and coverage. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has reliable sources and meets all the requirements to be an article. Much improved from when it was listed. — Ocatecir ^T 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackass series. Doesn't meet WP:NFF but clearly being produced at this point. Merge to the series until it meets WP:NFF for a valid split. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of reliable sources on it now. --AW (talk) 06:48, 30 December 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.