Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (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 Delete (and salt).  jj137  ♠ 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cars 2
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

procedural nomination &mdash; version brought to AFD: This was previously deleted via AFD and has risen from the grave a couple of times, only to be staked via Speedy. This time, I found the article PROD-nominated and did not feel a speedy was appropriate (not close enough to AFD-deleted version for WP:CSD); however, I would like to see this article Deleted and Salted so that it may not rise again until the movie actually gets going (if ever). As the PROD nominator put it, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- and there's really nothing in this article anyway." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- If I had bothered to look for previous AFD nominations (sorry about that), I would have done this myself. It's at best based on a maybe rumor about a possible project that might get started if things go just right. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - 100% original research. Guest9999 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * Delete It is a stub about a movie that "might" come out in four years. make it again when more info comes out. KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The Future films department of WikiProject Films has also been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no official word, nothing on IMDB, nothing from Pixar. Classic case of WP:CRYSTAL. All i've found is a pretty amusing article on the BBC about an illegal street vendor selling "Cars" as "Cars 2" the day "Cars" came out in theaters. Due to the amount of recreations of this article i suggest a little salt on this article. Doc Strange (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete obviously OR with no potential for verification. Pharmboy (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per OR/Crystal Ball Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT; SALT as appropriate.  Accounting4Taste: talk 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, The article begins with "Not much is known", which should be a good indication that you're not going to be able to get the reliable sources that you need. Lankiveil (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. I love it when the article shoots itself in the foot like this one does. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 04:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article itself. "Not much is known about the possible sequel to the box office hit."  There ya go.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per BALL, and some salt would be nice too. DodgerOfZion (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL.  Malinaccier (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Give an article a chance. Happy New Year!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment you do know that Give an article a chance is an essay and not a policy or a guideline? Doc Strange (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it makes a good argument and is a pleasant read. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the essay is that many articles have the potential to be expanded into noteworthy encyclopedic articles with citations and everything given time. It doesn't matter since that is NOT THE CASE here.  This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL.  Nothing can be added to this article that is verifiable about a sequel.  No studio announcements, no nothing.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a clear case of crystal balling. If coverage of such a sequel in development does arise, it should belong on the first film article before establishing its own article upon entry of production, per WP:NFF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Surely adding it to the bottom of the cars(film) Article would be the best idea...Wouldnt it? 78.148.109.75 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge +1000 internets to you, sir IP User! DesuXDesu (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment HaHa sorry I didnt realise i wasnt logged in Curttrfc (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's unsourced so it cannot be merged. -- neon white user page talk 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If this information were to be merged, it would just server the purpose of adding original research and speculation to the destination article. Merging is only for good information that for some reason or another does not quite qualify for its  own article. --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 13:53, 2 January 2008 (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.