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The result was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Lies (film)[edit]

The Truth About Lies (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demonstrates why WP:CRYSTAL exists. This speculatory article ended up with only one acceptable source which is now 30 months out-of-date. Despite this film supposedly being due for release this month, there has been barely even a hint of rumour about its status more recent than a year ago. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - In an interesting turn-about, the original article has been BOLDly replaced with an up-to-date article about a different film with the same name. I hold this to have fulfilled the deletion process. The new article is certainly acceptable so the AFD has no reason to continue. Well done, MichaelQSchmidt for an inspired piece of BOLD editing! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, Lexein. If it's got Billie Piper in it, it's gotta be good! I have a spotty Internet connection at the moment so I can't help you out there right now, I'll try to see about researching this at a later point in time. Happy Holidays, — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Note: the earlier article contained information that was poorly sourced and misleading. The improved version is something upon which we CAN build. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may well be that London-based "Motion Picture House" planned to make a film by this title, and THAT was the topic of a planned film spoken about in the article first brought to AFD. But it seems that one died aborning... Motion Picture House no longer lists it among their projects... and in the intervening time another film by the same name has been completed in New York. The original author started his article in good faith and based solely upon that one source. Since it speaks about a "project-in-development" only, it would have failed WP:NFF at that time. It was easier to modify this article to be about the MADE film and not the speculated one. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems the most plausible explanation. The original film described was UK-based and had different producers, director and cast. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:49, 26 December 2013 (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.