Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana Jones 4 (2nd 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 was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones 4

Indiana Jones 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:CRYSTAL Iks33 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep. The Indiana Jones franchise is notable. The article has 62 citations.----^DarkTea© 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article cites sources for it's forward looking statements. I think it's widely known that there will be a 4th Indiana Jones movie and Information on it ranges from official studio statements to speculations in major publications. 1redrun 09:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep from crystal: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Recurring dreams 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep against bad faith nomination. The film is being made! Alientraveller 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is intended to exclude "unverifiable speculation", which manifestly doesn't apply to this well-referenced article. Does WP:SNOW apply here? EALacey 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Alientraveller 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think the videos on the set are enough to verify that this is real. ColdFusion650 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Certain to be made. Brandon97 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Almost certain to be made and supported by many reliable sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable even if it *doesn't* take place. FrozenPurpleCube 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per notability guidelines for films. The film is in production, and the project, being part of a notable franchise, warrants its own article. Request a speedy close based on the overwhelming consensus to keep. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The film is part of a very major franchise and is in production! "WP:CRYSTAL" and that's it... what a terrible nomination. --Canley 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball keep. WP:CRYSTAL isn't valid when you've got sources out the wazooty verifying it! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Solidly sourced to remove this from the realm of speculation. Agree that this is rapidly headed for a snowball closure. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Assuming a good faith nomination, but the film is pretty well set at this point; making it quite notable. — RJH (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2007 (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.