Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny English 2


 * 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. The keep recommendations are very weak in relation to established policy. Rje 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Johnny English 2
The Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The external link is dead. WP:V, WP:NOR and much more applies Computerjoe 's talk 10:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Delete If there is actually a film by this title when/if it ever comes out then maybe restart the article. It doesn't exist yet and if it ever does, it may even have a different title. Snakes on a Plane is an example of how working titles can change. Delete --Guinnog 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This film is in production  but as the name is not confirmed probably a footnote in Johnny English might be useful. --Richhoncho 11:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, we've got articles about hundreds of upcoming movies, see: Category:Upcoming films. A correct reference should be added to the article instead of deleting it. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, the existence of a category does not mean anything to the article at hand. The charge is that this article is unverifiable.  If you wish to counter that, please cite the source that you say should be added.  If you don't cite sources, the verifiability issue will remain and the article will be deleted. Uncle G 13:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to get patronizing, the user above me already cited a source. Also, the fact that an external link died does not make an article original research. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't patronizing, and you didn't refer to Richhoncho's rationale at all. Your rationale was that we should keep this article because Category:Upcoming films exists (which is simply a bad argument, for the reason already given) and that some reference that you didn't specify should be added to the article.  Richhoncho's cited web page lists a film that has been "in development" since 2003 and says nothing more about it, by the way. Uncle G 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NN. Seeing as it's in preduction, should be kept, but does need a tidy up. Th ε Halo Θ 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no evidence this is actually in the works. There's no IMDB listing, for instance.  Even if it's been discussed, there would need to be something concrete to make a page. Ace of Sevens 12:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment for Ace of Sevens. I've found 2 entries which confirm the film is in production and . I'm actually more curious how this AdF turns out, rather than any burning opinion on the matter! --Richhoncho 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of those links say that it's in development, which is very different from in production. Ace of Sevens 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Delete per nom. --Richhoncho 14:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It doesn't matter if it's in production, or even if it gets released since no one knows if it will be a notable film or not.  This is the basis of the comment that WP is not a crystal ball.  Tychocat 13:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - really? If that is true, then will you delete all the films in the Upcoming Films category, and delete all the films which have not been in the top 100 of a particular year, in terms of revenue? --nkayesmith 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's an existing "upcoming films" category, by all means move this thing there and end the discussion. Tychocat 04:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a category, not a list. This article is already in the upcominf films category.  Plenty of films which haven't been released are ntoable for various reasons, even if cancelled.  (See Canceled Superman films for an example.)  I think a good general rule for upcoming films is they shoudl be notable even if they aren't completed.  As little work has been done here, this isn't the case. Ace of Sevens 05:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: It does not exist.  When it exists, it will likely achieve some fame.  At this point, there is no way to bank importance that's mere expectation for a movie that is merely expected.  Geogre 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete although this article should probably be re-created once the film actually is created. The sequel to a notable film (both starring a notable actor) will almost certainly be notable ... after it's been released. Allisonmontgomery69 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Notability is irrelevant when it is unverifiable from reliable sources. Fan-1967 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (can I say that, considering I wrote the article?) Sources have been listed above. We do have articles about movies that will be released, they have not achieved fame yet. Still, I don't know all the policies. I do agree, it does need tidy up. --nkayesmith 22:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We need verification that the movie will actually be made. We don't have that. The sources are movie gossip sites with no details at all. "In development" just means, at this point, that some people are talking about it. Fan-1967 22:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it doesn't appear be going ahead at the moment -, but it has been proposed by Atkinson (I think), so it probably will go ahead eventually. I think, though, it should certainly be created once the movie becomes in production, contrary to many of the opinions here. --nkayesmith 22:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable with reliable sources. Recreate if the movie goes ahead, but it doesn't seem to be. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, once again - What is so unverifiable about the sources? . --nkayesmith 07:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those sources list it as in development, which isn't sufficient to satisfy crystal ball policies. If it were in production, we'd have something, but in development essentially means they're considerign it.  No significant resources have been expended and it's nowhere near sure. Ace of Sevens 10:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, there's the fact that the second one that you cite is an empty template that says nothing except "No News Found for Johnny English 2". Uncle G 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' - WP is not a CB etc - films should not be on here until a release date has been fixed. BlueValour 02:05, 29 July 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.