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.--Húsönd 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Birds (2009 film)[edit]

The Birds (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only source is from IMDb. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --- RockMFR 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utter rumour. Any film due to be released in 2009 could well be cancelled tomorrow. Sam Blacketer 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep May not come out, but [1] returns a fair number of reasonable sources. Still, I wouldn't object if this was deleted, though it could just end up being recreated. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL.--Exarion 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this article doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept, because of that. The film isn't even in production yet so, for all we know, it's just a script someone's been showing around Hollywood. -- Kesh 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete pn; WP is not a crystal ball, and this is pretty far in the future. It might never happen  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Premature, crystal balling. Bwithh 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystal ball, rumors Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a film that has yet to be cast or directed...wishful thinking— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.123.186 (talk • contribs) 03:43, January 31, 2007
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when something more than "it may or may not get made" can be said about it. Resolute 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2 years is a lot of time for a movie to be canceled. MetsFan76 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. There are too few information to accept it as future film! In a second phase merge to the (now unknown) director, but now it is way to early. Cate | _Talk 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination. It can also be noted that the category for Category:2009 films hasn't been made yet.--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - chortle! Lugnuts 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - according to source (IMDB) it is in production, and since it is a remake of a milestone, it definitely will have a budget to come out. IMDB is also a prime source for film-related info. however, it would obviously be better to have an article issued once the film is already showing... --Jack Jones 11 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's extremely silly to remake Hitchcock films. Let's not report on them until they are out and have reviews. Jefferson Anderson 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a little to early for the article, when more information comes and it's properly cited then it would be a good article but for the minute - delete. Tellyaddict 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't understand the rush to create the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an article about it. Cyrus Andiron 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand the rush to delete the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an AfD request about it. BAM!! Lugnuts 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until it is more than an optioned screenplay. Arakunem 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete':To much speculation and per reasons above, as well as film rights are often purchased and rumored and never happen, On The Road, was suppposed to be adapted in the late 60s but never was.A mcmurray 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too speculative and under-sourced of an article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not worth simply using IMDB and too much speculation. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Recreate it when there's something to say about it... right now, it isn't even in production, just in development, which can mean just about anything. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not like this overwhelming chorus needs help, but delete per everyone. Natalie 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I like piling on. :-) Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Philippe Beaudette 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --71.234.193.242 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how is it any different from this 2009 Ashes series?? Lugnuts 12:02, 1 February 2007 (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.