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. Anas ^talk? 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 4

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I believe that this article, which states that the movie will open sometime in 2010 (which is 3 years from now), falls under this wikipedia guideline and it should be deleted. dposse 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Shrek (series) then Delete, same with Shrek 5. There is not enough valid, citable information for Shrek 4 to have its own article at this time. Merge what we have into the Series page, and once there *is* enough information, then it can be broken back out to a new page. SpikeJones 04:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is a copyright violation under GFDL. Corvus cornix 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: there are untold number of films in various stages of development, but until films are officially announced in some regard, there's no reason to create a new WP page for each film. Doing so smells of fandom, and WP is not a fan site. Nobody who is suggesting delete is saying to not include development information elsewhere, they're saying to hold off on the creation of the individual page until such time when there's enough information... and official announcements... to warrant having that separate page. SpikeJones 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

one last comment: When the director of a future/in production film is asked specifically to talk about that project and their response is "No. It's way too early...", shouldn't that be an indicator that it's too early for a WP article as well? Moving forward with a future film page when the people working of the film itself aren't talking is not exactly WP's mission, is it? (Granted, it was Brad Bird talking about his next film and it has nothing to do with Shrek, but the sentiment is the same.) SpikeJones 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question how many sources are sufficient? I count at least five in the current article. Rklawton 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Variety reference doesn't seem to mention Shrek at all. The others are just glancing mentions, none of them meets the criteria for WP:RS. Delete and redirect to Shrek (series). Corvus cornix 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, after salvaging any notable content into Shrek (series). Agnetha1234 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as infomation about the subject of this article will be coming thick and fast now that Shrek 3 is out. Dalejenkins 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's exactly my point. Shrek 3 just came out a month or so ago. This movie isn't even scheduled to be released until three years from now, and that's just an estimate. This article seems to be based on alot of speculation. dposse 13:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - that's an interesting point. Does a movie exist when people start making it - or when people start watching it? Rklawton 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until 2008-09 It is way too early to start an article about Shrek 4, while the 3rd just been in theaters.--JForget 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:SpikeJones. Dave101→talk 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This movie is going to be released, it was even talked about by Cameron Diaz and other members of the cast. As for Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, I happened to see articles yesterday about the 39th century. If this is not prediction, then what is? mjohnsona 09:17 24 June 2007
Keep per above, just read another story about this in a newspaper today. Not a case of WP:CRYSTAL--this is a sure thing, and continutaion of this series is notable. JJL 01:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh whatever, normally I have no patience for such articles, but I think nobody doubts that this film will be produced and will generate one heck of a lot of interest. As a practical matter, by the time the film comes out, the article will look nothing like it does now, so deleting it now accomplishes nothing. There is no deadline. YechielMan 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for many of the same reasons above. This is not so much a crystal ball entry as it is an entry for something that, while admittedly a little while away, is fairly likely to happen. Exigence 20:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. It has been announced that the film will be released so it is not a "crystal ball" article; several references are also included. Although much information may not be available about the details of the film, the subject of the article is still notable being part of the extremely successful Shrek series. --musicpvm 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Dreamworks is already saying its on the way, lining up directors, and putting up preview posters and such, then the crystal ball argument is invalidated. Tarc 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sequels commonly have their own pages, this one is no exception. Lord Sesshomaru
Delete oer WP:V. Aside from Variety, the sources cited do not satisfy WP:RS. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and read:Wow, it does not satisfy WP:RS, what geeks actully read that crap, they want content not stupid rules. Keep this comment, I am entitled to my option.

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.