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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resident Evil 4 (film)

  • "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled", like it says in the tag, okay? --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No. They never officially announced a fourth film, only the possibility of doing one. There's no concrete plans on doing a fourth film and everything in this article is nothing but speculation and gossip. It's the same reason why every single article on Batman Begins 2 gets deleted. Jonny2x4 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even in the absence of an official announcement, it seems fairly clear that there are well-established and credible plans and expectations for this movie to be done. The article states (I'm assuming truthfully, until someone changes it) that "Producer Paul W. S. Anderson has signed onto the project and may write the script", so obviously there is at least a hypothetical project within the studio for him to sign onto. And if nothing else, it appears that the plans themselves for this movie are notable enough for an article (i.e., the article can be about present plans and verifiable reports instead of about a nonexistent future movie). –Sommers (Talk) 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even in the absence of an official announcement... Bzzt. Game over: unverfied crystal-ballism. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball."
  • Delete Crystal ballage --Ruby 23:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep anounced films to do not fall under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". savidan(talk) (e@) 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The crystal ball objection is not for the announced film, but for if and when it will be announced. --Ruby 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sounds notable. --Terence Ong 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure crystal-ball: in Hollywood, nothing is settled until the cameras begin rolling and sometimes not even then. See Development hell. --Calton | Talk 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If they haven't even confirmed if they'll make the film, that's crystal ballery at its finest. --Kinu t/c 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sonys has confirmed possible creation of the film as the script details of Extinction still stand to lead into the forth film. If the plot details have changed for the third film somebody please provide a source, otherwise the film is still in early pre-production stages. P.S. why was this article was nominated twice for deletion when you cant even prove the film wont be made? Empty2005 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...when you cant even prove the film wont be made? You've got it precisely backwards: you need to prove it IS being made. And your use of weasel words isn't doing that. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per common sense. Adrian Lamo ·· 09:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per common sense. This is an announced film! Batmanand 12:00, 19 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.