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. Bucketsofg 03:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The film is not being made, and the article is subject to much rumour and speculation. Its inclusion is too much crystal balling. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to no actual production news announced; would not be opposed to recreation when there is casting, a production start date, and a release date set up. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Additionally, I have accumulated more valid (but not recent enough) citations, so when production starts, I can provide an abundant amount of background information regarding the film's journey through development hell. This can be implemented once production starts, if it ever does. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It can be recreated when the script is finished, according to IMBD which is probably the best source for articles like this. [1] JameiLei 18:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. CuriousGiselle 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "jurassic park 4" gets 675,000 google hits and "jurassic park iv" 95,700. Definitely notable, although I don't know wikipedia policy with regard to upcoming/potential movies. Joshdboz 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the project was mentioned as early as 2002, so I'm not surprised at the number. However, without any actual production news, I think we're better off without the article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has enough mentions and is filming soon. All the text is actually sourced and not WP:CRYSTAL.--Dacium 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if you understand. The mentions are because the project's been kicked around since 2002. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Google search provides enough evidence that the movie is going to be produced - only thing that needs to be deleted is the projections (from 2007-2001, for example) --Nevhood 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Read my previous comments about the Ghits. The movie was supposed to start up back in 2002. It's 2007. There is no actual production news, as in an actual start date to filming, announced. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets the crystal ball standard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: while the film isn't currently being made, there is verifiable evidence that it has been talked about. Even if the film is never made, the fact it was talked about (in reliable sources) makes it notable --Pak21 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not notable enough for its own article. This is supposed to be an article about a film. There's no actual filming going on here, and there may never be -- the project's been kicked around since 2002. There is no evidence of ACTUAL production of a film. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, Incomplete films, and Undistributed films, which says if a film is in development, actual production may never be reached. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are making a fundamentally wrong assumption: this does not have to be an article about a film: it can be an article documented the verifiable evidence that the film was talked about, even if this film does not exist, and even if it never exists. WP:NOTFILM states that "if such an unreleased film can meet the criteria in our basic guidelines, then a case can be made for its notability." Jurassic Park IV meets criterion 1, "The film has been the subject of multiple, significant published works, whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers." The fact that the article as currently stands is about the film, rather than the about the verifiable evidence is a reason for cleanup, not for deletion. Finally, I note that WP:NOTFILM is a proposed guideline and certainly does not override the core policy of verifiability. Cheers --Pak21 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: First of all, Jurassic Park IV has been in development as early as 2001, with no production ever going beyond that stage. The Google hits are because of the various happenstances in the development stage since that year, and I must remind you, per WP:NOTFILM, "Films merely 'in development' are subject to many rumors and unsubstantiated speculation, and such films often never reach actual production, let alone theatrical release." (Emphasis is mine.) As you can see, the article contains rumors and unsubstantiated speculation. In addition, this is an article about a film. Production of this film is not guaranteed to take place -- being in development since 2001 should reflect how iffy the film's chances are. I would not oppose the recreation of the article when production is set for a time and location with casting completed. However, some people who voted to "keep" are relying on the notion of "enough" Google hits -- take a look at a search for JPIV or JP4 in the Google News Archive, which generates more notable results than the large majority of a typical Google search. And the number is 216. Combined with the fact that there's been rumblings since 2001, that number is rather small and a weak indication of actual production. Seeing that films in development are not guaranteed to be made, this in turn does not meet WP:CRYSTAL standards because the subject of the article, the film itself, may never take place, and the existing documentation is not strong enough to indicate that production will actually take place. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Even though production isnt really moving fast, it is being made. Spielberg himself has said it numerous times. Suposedly, filming is due sometime in 2007 once Indiana Jones IV is completed. So I say keep it. darkyoda141 Febuary 20 2007

• Comment: Spielberg has also said that it's last on his list, and that he's focusing on Indy 4 right now. Are we going to start getting into the habit of creating articles for films that will not be in production for half a decade? "Pre-production" does not mean it will be made. Scouting locations is just a way to get prepared for when the time comes that you get the go ahead for "production". Look what happened to Halo. That went from definite to "might not" happen after all.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per darkyodal and Pak21. --Djsasso 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until production begins. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Production has already begun, with the pre-production stage. Has a lot more reliable references than other "to be made" articles. Shrumster 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't apply here. Since it is sourced and it is actually being filmed and now in pre-production stages then it is notable. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above--E tac 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pak21 and Erik.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ah, uh... I didn't vote to keep. But I did update the article with valid citations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article needs fixing, but should not be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to share what you think needs to be fixed on the talk page. I'll see what I can do. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Same with Darthgriz98.--Orthologist 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Under crystal ball - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." We don't know it is "certain to take place". Pre-production doesn't mean they will make the film. I just don't think there is enough reliably sourced information to warrant a page at this moment. It seems better suited for a film series, or on the page for the 3rd film. Saw IV was greenlit and is going to be made, according to the studio, it's pretty definite, but there isn't enough information to support an entire article. We're talking about an article for a film that has years before it get's put into production, because Spielberg has yet to start Indy 4.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  23:50, 24 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.