Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Powers 4


 * 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   Merge/Redirect, to Austin Powers (film series). Non-admin close by nominating editor. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Austin Powers 4

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This film is close to total speculation at this point, "announced" or not, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NFF either way as it is nowhere close to commencing principal photography. It is rumored to be in the scripting phase. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Austin Powers (film series) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Austin Powers (film series), I can't find any reliable sources confirming it's filming.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Austin Powers (film series) until there is something that can actually be referenced. Would normally say to delete, but IMDB has a page for it, assuming in good faith that Mike is likely working on it in some way.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect any sourced content per WP:TOOSOON to Austin Powers (film series). The topic may well become quite notable in the near future, but for now there is sinply not enough reliable coverage and content to merit being an independent article. NOTE: I just removed the inapplcable film infobox.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm completely fine with a merge/redirect, and, as nominator, will self-close this AFD and implement the merge and redirect. Will probably drop a link to this discussion on the redirect's talk page so consensus against this article existing yet can be easily demonstrated in the likely case that someone recreates the article. I certainly share everyone above's confidence that this will in all likelihood end up deserving an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:09, 4 April 2011 (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.