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 per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks II[edit]

Alvin and the Chipmunks II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed prod. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.

• Strong Delete; 1> the article is not referenced, 2> Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, 3> the article is probably total BS (aka a hoax). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nah, it's real, but it also has not entered production. Thus Accounting4Taste is exactly right, it fails the future films guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too far in the future for us to be writing about it now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Xymax is dead on that it's confirmed, but I don't think we'll be seeing Jojo or Miley Cyrus in it, so let's wait until filming actually commences to create. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete– as per WP:CRYSTAL. It may be recreated closer to its release date. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and leave a mention of a sequel on the Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) page. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — per WP:CRYSTAL and no evidence of notability. macy^talk 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No verifiable evidence of production. Mostly rumors at this point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, there's evidence, but it's too far in the future for there to be enough to base an article on. With what's available, it would essentially be a "It's in production with a budget of so many million dollars", and that doesn't really appeal to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete echo all the above statements. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As previously said. It can be recreated when it's actually in production, with sources and stuff. Also recommend salting it to prevent early recreation in the meantime, at least for the next few months. Or maybe a protected redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks --Ebyabe (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It is mentioned and referenced in the film article, so no worries there. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is also not based on fantasy or wishful thinking (if that were the case then most articles would probably be about sex ;) ).

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think that we should note it on the prequel, as irk said, but I would also like to point out that we have Pixar articles way ahead of this release date Cupy 52040 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (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.