Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (4th nomination)

Terminator 4

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only source of information in the article is the IMDB page which hasn't been updated in almost 2 years. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Nominator simply commented out an old AFD and started a new one in the same page. This is actually the 3rd nomination for the article. For previous AFDs see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination). Blimey O'Riley, what a mess (in the past I mean, not the current nom's fault)! This is actually nomination number 4 or greater:

• Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2004 (2) - Deletion log entry according to What Links Here (but such a long article and I couldn't find it)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 - 30 September 2005 - Delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination) - 11 December 2005 - No consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (2nd nomination) - 27 January 2006 - No consensus

Page has been deleted 3 times previously:

    * 12:35, 12 January 2006 Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted "Terminator 4" (nonsense)
    * 00:26, 12 January 2006 EdwinHJ deleted "Terminator 4" (patent nonsense)
    * 02:41, 30 September 2005 Zscout370 deleted "Terminator 4" (dude, this was an attack page, no need for a AFD.)

--Kingboyk

• Delete per my nomination. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, Google does bring up quite a significant number of hits. --Soumyasch 13:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Google hits, yes [1], but they only affirm how speculative a subject it is. PJM 13:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Enough valuable time has been wasted on this crap. It's still speculation and the article after 3 AFDs is still a useless stub. --kingboyk 14:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Let me point out more, when you look at the Ghits for T4, if I'm reading it correctly, amongst the first ten links there are claims that the movie will be released in three different years. If the year of release is not nailed down, we are in solid crystal ball territory. --Deville (Talk) 14:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Kingboyk and Deville. Google hits can be useful to establish notability, but are of no use when the question (as here) is crystal-ballism. Bucketsofg 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and leave a locked page in place to prevent recreations. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation until there is an official green light announcement from the studio. The previous delete decision AfD still stands. Tag the page with {{deletedpage}} until an announcement is made to prevent recreations and future AfDs.  (aeropagitica)  15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Protect the page until the film is announced to be made to prevent any recreation. We are an encyclopaedia, not some site to post Terminator stuff and future films. A stub forever, no way! --Terence Ong 15:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol. We could go the other way of course, and get Terminator 5 stubbed up, just in case? :) --kingboyk 17:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Terminator 5, Terminator 6, Terminator 7, Terminator 8, Terminator 9, Terminator 10 --Deville (Talk) 23:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • !!! very droll. Had me worried for a minute :) I wanted to say "lol" but I think I may have used my "lol" quota for this debate already :) --kingboyk 23:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 17:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - crystal ball. Eusebeus 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Terminator series or else it will just be re-created. — RJH 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from further recreation. And just speedy any attempt to TRY to recreate it! --InShaneee 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect, crystal bollocks. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, probably to Terminator series, to prevent it being recreated again. It would be a useful redirect, as it's something that it likely to be searched for. — sjorford (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (and protect until such time as there are actual verifiable developments regarding Terminator 4) would seem like a fine solution to me too. --kingboyk 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Terence Ong. WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR etc are all violated until this is announced. Batmanand | Talk 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Terminator series per Sjorford -- Astrokey44|talk 00:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above. No more of this until a film is officially announced. 23skidoo 04:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per others. Arbusto 07:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is pointless!
• No vote: The article is fine as long as Terminator 4 actually exists, in the sense of someone has started spending money or signing contracts. And it's verifiable, of course. Peter Grey 04:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep hey,does everyone think this movie doesnt exist,because if it will come out why delete the article?it is a good starting point192.30.202.28 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect. Film not forthcoming. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>