Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil 4 (film) (second nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resident Evil 4 (film)

• Second nomination - The first time resulted in seven votes in favor of deletion and five against. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil 4 (film) for an archive of this discussion. Jonny2x4 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No vote, gimme a break, the first AfD was just closed three hours ago --Ruby 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - It was only closed because I made the mistake of reopening the first AfD when it was closed down, rather than create a new one like I should've (I'm not used to the new AfD system). The first AfD resulted in no favorable position for either; keeping the article or deleting it (although there was a seven-to-five ratio in favor of deleting this article). Jonny2x4 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Traditionally, the procedure is to keep an article when there is no consensus to delete it, and traditionally there is a cool-off period between serial AfD's. --Ruby 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Still Hollywood vaporware, still crystal-ballism. --Calton | Talk 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep I see no problem with this. These are press release. seem verifiable. Article seem sourced. The only trouble you seem to have is whith the fact that it hasn't been release yet but if president Bush suddenly said on November 4th we will attack China and we will call it Liberty World War. Then I think we could start an article on Liverty World War and what is currently happening to support that. Same for here. Some plans are happening in the background. I think these plans are all the more interesting because now we will have an article that has followed the developement from the start --CyclePat 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I see no problem with this. Read WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and get back to us, will you?
• The only trouble you seem to have is whith the fact that it hasn't been release yet Wrong. This project hasn't even been CONFIRMED yet, let alone set, filmed, or undergone postproduction. Proposed movie projects are a dime-a-dozen in Hollywood -- the state of limbo even highly developed projects (you know, with actual contracts, actual creative personnel attached, and actual scripts) go through Development hell. And as for the rest of your comments, they're too garbled to respond to. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• If I could jump in, the difference I see between this movie and the dime-a-dozen proposals is notability. (See my previous comments below.) This film will be the sequel to two already-released major films and is already connected to two famous people, and the plans and rumors surrounding it have received significant public attention; this is not true for all the other unconfirmed films out there. These facts are notable and verifiable, and Wikipedia should cover them. (This is the case even if the plans are tentative; facts of the form, "These notable people have verifiably made a tentative announcement that..." are still facts.) The central point of the crystal ball rule is that future events are unverifiable, but this article concerns verifiable talk about future events, so why not keep it? Thanks for your discussion. –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This future project is being planned by notable people in a public and verifiable way. The article can and should describe what verifiable plans there are, as they exist in the present; we would be remiss if we omitted this noteworthy information by applying the "crystal ball" rule too broadly. (And should the film be cancelled, the article could then be changed to one about a film that was publicly planned to be made and then wasn't, and merged if necessary.) –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - By your logic, the deletion of the Batman Begins 2 article was unjustified, even though the producers have clear plans to do a trilogy, even moreso than Resident Evil 4. The information on the sequel is instead kept on the original Batman Begins page, since nothing is concrete about those sequels. Why shouls Resident Evil 4 get special treatment? Jonny2x4 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with the content of the Batman Begins 2 article from before it was deleted, but I don't think my logic says that. Tentative information about the Batman Begins sequel, as you point out, is indeed kept at Batman Begins. The "crystal ball" policy is about whether certain information should be included in Wikipedia at all, not whether articles themselves should be deleted or kept, so I ask: if those verifiable facts about plans and speculation for a future movie can be kept at Batman Begins, why can't verifiable facts about plans and speculation for Resident Evil 4 be kept here?

      If it's just a question of whether the article should be merged into Resident Evil: Apocalypse or Resident Evil: Extinction, as Batman Begins 2 was, then it's only a matter of style and organization, rather than keep/delete. Personally, I think Resident Evil 4 (film) is already too long to be merged, but if you'd like to vote "merge and redirect", be my guest. Discussion is still welcome. Thank you. ndash;Sommers ^(Talk) 11:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

      • It might seem long at first sight, but if you view the actual content of the article, you'll notice half of it is unverified speculation and unconfirmed reports (i.e: Capcom might create new characters, Leon Kennedy is rumored to be in the movie, the movie is planned for 2007, but nothing official is confirmed). It almost feels as the contributor is making half of the information up. It feels less like an encyclopedic article and more like a collection of wishful thinking and hearsay. If you cut it down so that it only contains confirmed info, you won't have much of an article.
        I think it would be ideal to merge all the confirmed info about the fourth Resident Evil film into the Resident Evil: Extinction page. From what I understand, that movie is supposed to be filming this year.Jonny2x4 03:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. I completly agree with Sommers. Empty2005 06:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You already voted once. Can't vote again. Jonny2x4 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with any policy that says that. Could you please cite one? If that were the case, it would seem like the old discussion should be pasted at the top of this section, so that everyone's previous votes and arguments could be seen. Thanks. –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • This is a new discussion, Empty2005 is entitled to a second vote. Stifle 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 16:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Calton. - DoubleCross 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resident Evil: Extinction as there is already mention of the probability for a fourth film in the series in that article. - Rudykog 06:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no doubt at all that there are plans in motion to make it, and it's a separate topic from Resident Evil: Extinction. Phoenix-forgotten 22:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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.