Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw IV
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 was Delete as a crystal ball article. Can be recreated when appropriate press releases & other official news sources are available. (aeropagitica) 10:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Saw IV
- For prior related discussions, see Saw III (AfD discussion), Saw 3 (AfD discussion), and Saw 3 movie (AfD discussion).
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Prod was removed on the basis that the creator has announced this sequel. There is no cited source for that claim nor the claim in the article that a sequel is probable. In addition, there is no apparent source for that claim out of the 16 unique Google hits for the film name and the creator's name. [1] Erechtheus 23:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Speedydelete as an article that has already been deleted twice. [2] (Unless verification can be provided). eaolson 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment. I think G4 only applies when there has been an xfD. There has not based on the history linked. Erechtheus 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Good point, I've removed the speedy tag. eaolson 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I think G4 only applies when there has been an xfD. There has not based on the history linked. Erechtheus 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "tentative ... not yet set ... expected ... sometime around ... if ... almost definite." There's not one single definitive, reliable statement in the article, which means it has no actual information to impart. Fan-1967 02:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Allow me to add "all but announced" from the vote below. Fan-1967 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wait till an official production is announced. 23skidoo 13:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Saw 4 has been all but announced by the director, James Wan. This is not, therefore, crystal ballism. Dev920 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Is "all but announced" different from "unannounced"? eaolson 15:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, that is the definition of crystal ballism. Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- He has said that a sequel will be made if Saw 3 is a success. As Saw 3 will be a success, deleting an article that will need to be immediately recreated seems silly. Dev920 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a verification for your claim that "Saw 3 will be a success"? Outside of, say, a crystal ball. eaolson 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are being very incivil. Please remember we're an encyclopedia, not a sarcasm competition. Dev920 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- All I'm asking is for you to provide information so the article can meet the verification policy. From WP:NOT: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Go look at the Saw 3 article. It has six external links, including the Saw III official website. The Saw Series template lists the movies as the Saw Trilogy. You've made the prediction that (a) Saw III will be a success and (b) therefore, there will be a Saw IV. I'm not saying either of these things won't happen. I'm just saying that making a WP article because you say they are going to happen isn't good enough. That's crystalballism. eaolson 23:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are being very incivil. Please remember we're an encyclopedia, not a sarcasm competition. Dev920 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a verification for your claim that "Saw 3 will be a success"? Outside of, say, a crystal ball. eaolson 20:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- He has said that a sequel will be made if Saw 3 is a success. As Saw 3 will be a success, deleting an article that will need to be immediately recreated seems silly. Dev920 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You may well be asking me for information, but you are doing so in a rude and unhelpful manner. Just because I'm not a newbie doesn't mean you can be unpleasant. Dev920 07:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dude y do u wanna delete it just put the sources and resources damn every solution u guys come up with is not improving something, but deleting it wtf help it, don't destroy it GOD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.36.66. Note that it was the first comment logged under this IP. (talk • contribs) .
- Comment What resources? Danny Lilithborne 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dude y do u wanna delete it just put the sources and resources damn every solution u guys come up with is not improving something, but deleting it wtf help it, don't destroy it GOD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.36.66. Note that it was the first comment logged under this IP. (talk • contribs) .
- Delete Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. --Charlesknight 00:23, 24 September 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.
