Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrek4 2nd

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 4

Crystalballim Wdon7 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I accidentally closed this discussion, as "Shrek4" was giving me a red link, so I assumed the page had been nuked. I didn't realize that there should have been a space between Shrek and 4. Discussion is now re-opened. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballism for sure. No verifiable info to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first looked at this article, I didn't see any sources. Now I see five sources, all of which seem reliable enough to me. That's good enough for me to change my vote to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists on IMDb and other movie info sites. meshach 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but IMDb only lists that it's coming out in 2010. As of right now, there's no more verifiable information than that. Someone's really jumping the gun on this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; there is more verifiable info than that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article [1] indicates that Dreamworks business filings include Shrek 4 in 2010. That indicates to me that their SEC filings include information on the movie. This makes it verifiable information on an expected event. It's also confirmed here [2] which mentions talks with a director. Sure, it may change, it may even be canceled, but even if it were canceled, that'd mean something. FrozenPurpleCube 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has some reliable sources, definitely needs an article. Also, this afd is done by a user whose only contributions are to this afd.Shindo9 Hikaru 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE this article into Shrek (series). IF and WHEN there is proper WP sources / verifable information about this film to the point where a separate article should exist, then break that section out to a new page. Same thing goes for any "Shrek 5" articles that may be created and "Puss in Boot: Story of an Ogre Killer". And since IMDB is user-edited, we can't use the existence of a film entry as proof of a film's existence. SpikeJones 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Users can add comments and reviews to IMDB, but cannot add entries for the movies themselves. If they could they would be having the same problems we have here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it is possible to add a new title. IMDB, however, moderates submissions before they appear on the site and seems to do some minimal verification. Still, it is effectively self-published, and equivalent to a press release in terms of reliability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now under WP:Crystal and per previous AFD. Also, could someone please fix the AFD link on the main AFD page, it's red. --Whstchy 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources. --Caldorwards4 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Shrek (series) as per SpikeJones' recommendation above, until enough information to break it out into an article such as Bond 22 Keep, after looking at new information provided. --Edwin Herdman 06:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's appropriately sourced. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not thrilled about this one, but it seems sourced well enough. It's a successful series, and the computer animation aspect means an unusually long production period before release as well as a fairly early commitment (i.e. once it's begun it's very expensive to cancel). --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep I think this is borderline CRYSTAL, but by the strict definition it isn't.Balloonman 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enthustiatic Keep Are you guys kidding me? There are tons of sites on google which say there is a shrek 4, including http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892791/ how can we delete this? Whoever deletes it, be careful, because people will just laugh in your face in 2 years when it comes out in the movies. --LtWinters 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the mere existence of an IMDB page or a mention in the rumor mill is not enough to warrant a page. A movie article should have sufficient details, such as confirmation it is being worked on, names of somebody involved with the project, or some firm official stance on the direction the project is taking. --Edwin Herdman 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many other confirmed pages about future movie projects, why is this any different User:AKR619
Keep BrenDJ 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, although simple and brief is verified by reliable sources about its development, so it doesn't really violate WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a persistent and depressing failure of many people to appreciate the difference between predicting the future and reporting on what somebody else has said in the past about the future. Everyking 10:33, 26 May 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.