Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV (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 keep. No strong consensus apparent about whether to keep as a standalone article or merge. W.marsh 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV
This film has not improved in notability since the last AFD, and like the article says, the film is in "development hell", and for all anyone knows it could stay like that for years to come.It seems that only because films always leave a door for a sequel, people always assume they will eventually happen, which they might.The fact is Hollywood officials likely talk about making sequels for most films, and this film has been talked about since 2001, but still hasn't started production. Stronger confirmation of possibility of creation is required before it can be considered to be true. Rodrigue 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Star Trek XI was created long before even an announcement. -- Cat chi? 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which discourages using another article's existence as the basis for this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay. Courts decide based on precedence and so should we. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that "other stuff" was even in the same league as "this stuff".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - This should be a merge information proposal, not a delete information proposal. Cat, two wrongs don't make a right, and no two articles are the same. Star Trek XI has way more information than JP IV, and would not benefit from being on a Star Trek film series page, JPIV would. Just like with Spider-Man 4, there isn't enough going on right now to suggest that the film WILL be made, or in the least, that it warrants its own article. ST XI is more like Indiana Jones IV, it's in the process of being made; JP IV is on the backburner until after Indy IV. Best to put it on the Jurassic Park franchise page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect since there is no definite news of production. It's also misleading that an uncertain-to-be-made film would get its own article.  I agree with what Bignole said above to place the information at Jurassic Park franchise.  I would also take it a step further and recommend that article's style to be similar to Spider-Man film series.  There is nothing wrong with the content; it just needs to be housed as a subtopic instead of a main topic, since this film has been kicking around in development hell for a long time now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure development hell is the right term.The fact is if they wanted to make a another film, it would have been released a few years after the last one.But a trilogy is usually a main film series ends, so from there they can just decide years later if they want to revive the series and make another film.The first 3 films were no more than a few years a part, and so far this one looks longer if it is going to happen.

Development hell is when a film is having trouble finding time to be produced.This film is just simply a lingering idea, because there is no real reason to continue a film past the usual 3. Rodrigue 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment 'there is no real reason to continue a film past the usual 3' rather brilliantly sums up everything that's wrong about Hollywood at the moment. Nick mallory 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The articles on Star Trek XI and Bond 22 cannot be used as justification for keeping this as those are films with verifiable and confirmed production status. Although there is a comment in this article citing a source stating back in 2006 that production was expected in 2007, there has since been no concrete evidence that such a production is imminent, just various "so-and-so is not in the film" comments. Delete it for now, but make sure there's a paragraph about it in the main article, and a full article can always be recreated if and when production is actually announced. Otherwise Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball applies. 23skidoo 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment To be fair, the film Star Trek XI was only verifiable since this February 2007 when a firm release date was announced. Before that the article could have easily been deleted for the same reasons like this one, it was only speculation.

Is it fair to say that articles on future films should usually only be created when an exact release date for the film has been announced?. Rodrigue 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, that or an exact production start date is announced have always been my feelings. Generally, you could count on your hand how many times a studio would fork over tens of millions and then simply say "eh, nevermind". In the least they'll throw it on DVD just to get their money back. This isn't to be confused with having to pay people because you didn't make the film. Anyway, that's a discussion for WikiProject Films. Right now, JP is best suited in a film series page, and not a page of its own. There has been a ton of speculation that has yet come to fruitation.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the film is notable, but remove the upcoming films tag and write in past tense until they give a release date. The fact it's part of the Jurassic Park series makes it notable, and just because it's canceled (or seem to have stalled) doesn't mean it should be gone. Whsitchy 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The information wouldn't be gone, just the page. That's why this AfD is probably the wrong step, because people associate it with deletion of information (which is its primary purpose really, but not in this case). Why does sharing a connection to something automatically make it notable? The information may be notable in and of itself, but not notable enough (or stable enough) to support an entire article all alone. By that definition, we should create an article for every husband or wife of every celebrity (who isn't a celebrity themselves). I mean, they're married to a Matt Damon, or some other famous person, that makes them notable, right?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - Since the film is in "development hell," I say we put it in our own little "development hell" and merge it back with the main article. --Hnsampat 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.  -- Sl g randson (page - messages - contribs) 18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The positive sources seem to be just a video games website. The JPS talk to me  19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator, you're pointing out how someone's arguing "this one article exists, so this here article should too", but didn't you initially say that because Terminator 4 lost in the AfD, that this should too? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I said it was wrong to compare Jurassic Park IV to Star Trek XI because,although only since last february, that film had a confirmed release date.But Terminator 4 and Jurassic Park IV are currently prety much the same in terms of verification of when, if at all, they will even start being produced.I stand by my comments that they are comparable and therefore have the same AFD result. Rodrigue 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as this is not yet a film. JJL 23:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There are sources stating this movie will be out, that along with the fact that many other movie's articles come out before release is more back up. 69.249.168.9


 * Comment: Please understand that there can be talk about a film that will never be made. Thus, it cannot be accepted that just because a studio talks about plans to make a film would mean that the film would actually result.  There are many issues to be dealt with, such as the budget, the appropriate director, the proper cast, et cetera.  Clearly, this article shows that there is still no sign of actual production, even with talk since 2002. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: That is why I nominated it, talk and even development of a film does not confirm production.It is natural for people to speculate on a sequel for a film,especially such a popular one, long before it is confirmed or denied if the film even is being made.That was the problem with Terminator 4, just because it was a popular film series it is natural to assume there will be another film, and even officials can ponder the thought for years as in that film and this one. Rodrigue 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: Change to Keep Because of the logic cited below. Articles should not be recommended for deletion repeatedly if a previous AfD discussion has resulted in clear consensus to the contrary. --Bishop2 20:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the logic below has nothing to do with having its own article. It should still be merged, the information should not be deleted (which is the purpose of AfD). A bunch of reliable sources saying the film is delayed doesn't mean "let's create an article about it". It should be with the series as a whole.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters, frankly. If the article's already reached "no consensus," no new discussion is allowed unles new information is present to discuss on the matter.  And there's no new info to discuss since the last nomination. --Bishop2 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Over a dozen reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish that the film is in the works and is notable. No requirement exists that a release date be imminent. Given the clear consensus to Keep in an AfD held just a few months ago, I would also question if this AfD is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, which states "Once established, consensus is not immutable.... This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." as there seems to be no change in the status of the article that would justify revisiting the issue. Alansohn 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This movie has been confemed a million times. If you delete this why not delete all the other coming in 2008 movie articles! User:Microraptor Dude


 * Comment: Because 2008 stuff like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk are already in production. This one has no signs of that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge covering the topic of an incomplete movie is fine, even if that movie is never released. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As for the renomination for deletion of this article, Wikipedia has no real policy on double jeopardy, or the renomination of an article for an AFD.consensus simply highlights possible arguments for and against doing so, and generally an AFd can be argued again after a few months. Rodrigue 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Consensus is not merely a nice thing to try to do, but a bedrock foundation of Wikipedia. Consensus is marked as official policy. As the policy states, "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss." While the exact words are not used, this would be a rather clear ban on double jeopardy, placing a very strong burden of proof on a nominator seeking to take a second (or third, or fourth...) shot at deleting an article that was closed as a Keep in the past. WP:Notability (a mere guideline) states that "Notability requires objective evidence and does not expire.... If a topic once satisfied these guidelines, it continues to satisfy them over time." Given that the previous AfD ended in a clear consensus to keep and given that no new information has been provided to undermine that consensus, it would seem that this AfD is a rather clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Alansohn 15:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. You don't see court cases holding a retrail for someone that was found not guilty in a murder trial, just because they have something else to talk about. They may prosecute for something else entirely, but not the same thing. Also, the first AfD occurred in February, it is not June. I'm still not saying "delete", because I think a proposed merger should have been done on the article page, but it doesn't fall into Rod trying to get a desired outcome, especially when Rod didn't even vote in the last AfD, let alone nominate the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really. The desired outcome of the previous AfD (which stands for "Articles for Deletion") was to delete the article. The stated goal of this current exercise is to take a second try at deleting the article. In the U.S. Court system, double jeopardy applies only to the specific crime; you can charge the same person for different crimes or different occurrences of the same crime and seek the same penalty. In Wikipedia, the clear statement at WP:Consensus is that double jeopardy applies to the intended result. You simply cannot take repeated stabs at deleting an article, the intended goal of an AfD. The fact that the nominator (or prosecutor, from your analogy) is different, or that the participants (members of the jury) are nor the same as in the first AfD does not make this effort any more legitimate, nor does the passage of several weeks make the previous AfD old news. When the nominator realized that a previous AfD had existed and had been closed as a Keep, a rather strong burden was imposed to demonstrate why the previous consensus should be disregarded. Despite this responsibility, the nomination makes no mention of why the consensus should be overturned, merely stating that "This film has not improved in notability since the last AfD". That simply is not good enough. The obligation on the nominator, all participants and the entire Wikipedia community is to respect settled areas of discussion. This AfD shoves its thumb firmly in the eye of consensus. Alansohn 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't say that an article cannot be renominated for an AfD, it just says don't continually do it just to get the outcome you desire. Rod didn't nominate it last time, he didn't even partake in the discussion, so saying that he is trying to supercede something that he may or may not have known anything about is bogus. Also, it isn't uncommon for actuals to have a "second nomination". Different people see AfDs at different times. By the time it was made clear there was a previous AfD, this one had already been underway and it's clear that many people think the information should, in the least, be moved to a more relevant area. If you think there is such a disregard for consensus, then go report it. You keep citing WP:Consensus, but what you need to pay attention to is Consensus. You pulled this:This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome, However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss and It is the nature of the wiki to be ever-changing. New people visit every day, and through new information and new ideas, we may gain insights we did not have previously. The point is that nothing has happened with this film since it's last AfD, when everyone is like "it's going to happen". A future film's notability can change, because it isn't established in notability. It isn't like creating a page for a past event and then having someone say "this is no longer notable". What Rod is saying is that this was never notable, and the film has not even gone into production (or given clues as to when it will), thus it's notability is still questionable. The "consensus" of notability would depend on the group of editors discussing. Maybe the vast majority of them were fanboys that didn't want to see their beloved page deleted on the grounds that there wasn't clear information the film would be made. It isn't hard to have a small group of people vote in one direction for a film that most people could care less about. Right now, people aren't even talking about it. The AfD may have been the wrong choice of procedures, as I'm sure Rod was more or less saying the page should be deleted but the information should stay. Regardless, it's clear that Rod isn't violating concensus, he's asking for a reiteration of it based on the lack of relevant information on the film's notability. Just being part of a film franchise doesn't make it notable. There are half a dozen Hellraiser films, and the last 3 or 4 were direct to DVD. Talk of a film doesn't make it anymore notable either. What if the film comes out and doesn't perform well? It doesn't bomb horribly, but it doesn't do anything spectacular? It's the fourth film in the series, who is actually expecting it to do anything? What did the last one do? See, it doesn't automatically get notability enough for its own article, just because it's part of something on a large scale. Minor characters of films are not notable, even if the films themselves are. The little Kitner boy that was killed in Jaws doesn't deserve his own article.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus makes it clear that consensus, while not set in stone, must be respected. The restriction on multiple AfDs applies collectively to all editors; each editor is not entitled to one stab at deleting an article, merely because he or she hadn't nominated (or voted to delete) the article previously. The claim that the nominator didn't know there was a previous AfD seems rather specious, as Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV already existed and it takes additional effort to set up a 2nd nomination. Nor is ignorance of policy or precedent justification to ignore consensus. I appreciate your attempt to argue the previous AfD, but the matter was settled as Keep. I couldn't care less that you don't feel that the film will be ever be made or will make any money as the fourth in the series. I got tired after number two. Actually, I was bored about a third of the way through Jurassic Park II. I have read Consensus, which follows the sentences you quoted with the rather clear statements I pulled out that precedent is a rather strong trump over attempts to change consensus, and maps out a rather well-defined protocol to follow to try to undo established consensus, none of which was followed. Notability was established by virtue of the fact that the Wikipedia community came to a consensus that the dozen-plus reliable and verifiable sources supported the claim. Nothing has happened since then that would justify what seems to be a rather flagrant violation of WP:Consensus. Please review the full text of Consensus and tell me which part of the following justifies creation of another AfD: "Once established, consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision about an article, but when the article gains wider attention, members of the larger community of interest may then disagree, thus changing the consensus. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. However, an issue that was decided in the past can always be discussed again, especially if there is new information to discuss. An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed." Alansohn 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to add, I did create the article of Jurassic Park franchise, and given the state of the film I think the footnote on the possibility of the film is enough, and is already covered in that article. Rodrigue 16:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No one said he went about it the best way, but your words are acting as if Rod maliciously intended to supercede the previous AfD, when from his discussion it's apparent that he merely felt that it wasn't an accurate consensus. Consensus can be challenged, and it isn't like he turned (or anyone else) turned around 15 days later. It was months later, after no new information had become available to satisfy, in his mind, a consensus about the notability of a film that may or may not be made. It's clear from this AfD that keep is not as strong an opinion as it was 4 months ago. My argument with you is not over whether Rod made the best decision in regards to the article (as my opinion on what should have been done is clearly at the top), but how you are addressing Rod's actions as being intentionally disruptive to the consensus. That may not have been your intention, but it is how it was presented. Instead of say simply "consensus was reached several months ago" (which obviously, many disagree with... which is not a crime), but how you accused him of trying to sidestep the consensus by coming here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My issue is not with the individual who started this second AfD. My issue is that a second AfD exists in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. I have never stated that the AfD was created deliberately to spite consensus, only that its existence is improper. My only reference that could be read as blaming the nominator is a statement that it's rather hard to create a second nomination without knowing that a prior one existed, which was aimed not at the nominator, but in response to your statement that the knowledge of the existence of a previous AfD is something "he may or may not have known anything about". I have no reason to believe, nor have I ever stated that the nominator intended to be disruptive. It is the nomination itself, which could well have been created with all of the good faith in the world, that is disruptive. Now that the violation has been raised, the good faith proper step would seem to be for the nominator to withdraw the nomination, and then follow the procedures specified at WP:CONSENSUS for uprooting previous consensus. Alansohn 17:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was your intention, I said that your presentation was the problem. You could have simply stated that a consensus was reached in February over the existence of this article. "Violation" of consensus is more serious than a simple "reassessment". The same with "disruptive". He isn't being disruptive. I don't see half a dozen 2nd Nominations of AfDs with his name on them. After 4 months, this isn't disruptive. It may be ill timed, and the wrong procedure, but it wasn't disruptive. Rod apparently feels that it needed to be reassessed, and obviously several editors felt the same. Rod cannot close an AfD once it is in progress, only an Admin can close it. Rod can withdraw his nomination, but only an Admin can stop and say "these other editors votes have no bearing, so I'm going to close this AfD based on the withdrawal of the nominator". If say there was a first AfD, which was clearly "keep", and a second that became overwhelmingly "delete"... the fact that a nominator withdraws his nomination would be irrelevant to the new consensus. Obviously, there isn't a clear one way or the other here, so if he chooses to withdraw the nomination it shouldn't be a problem. But that is his choice, and calling him disruptive (which, if you call his actions disruptive, then you are calling him that) is probably not going to help the situation. Look at us now, you and I are arguing over whether or not he's being disruptive, this AfD is being disruptive or if he was simply trying to reassess a future film's article consensus on notability (which he has the right to do, though his timing may be off). This right here, between you and I is disruptive to this page. I'm not trying to be rude, but I think maybe we should just end it here so that we both do not bog the page down any further. You've explained why you think this is a violation of consensus, and I've explained why I believe that it isn't (in that regard) a violation of anything. Everything's been said, and we are going to exacerbate the situation by reiterating everything we've already "iterated" multiple times already. Rod has a choice, he can withdraw his nomination if he chooses. If he doesn't, it won't be the end of Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My original "presentation" of the issue when I first participated in this Afd was "Given the clear consensus to Keep in an AfD held just a few months ago, I would also question if this AfD is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS..." Not only could I "have simply stated that a consensus was reached in February", I did say exactly that (except for the February part), and did so in the most passively worded manner I could find. I did not use the word "disruptive", I took it from your statement that I was "addressing Rod's actions as being intentionally disruptive to the consensus..." and I called the nomination disruptive, and specifically stated that I did not think the nominator was. While I have made it clear from my first comment here that this entire AfD is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, I have never stated that this was a deliberate effort on the nominator to circumvent Wikipedia policy. I am more than willing to grant that the violation was unintentional. I have never seen a circumstance where an AfD was not closed based on a withdrawn nomination regardless of where consensus seemed to swing at that point in time. If the bedrock WP:CONSENSUS official policy has any value, this AfD should be withdrawn. If it is withdrawn, it won't be the end of Wikipedia, but it might show that Wikipedia official policy does have some meaning and value. Alansohn 19:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the AfD should be withdrawn. Many Keep votes from the previous AfD were placed in contrast to the initial Delete votes.  The issue at hand was keeping the contest intact.  If the article was deleted, none of the development information would have been kept in the Wikipedia article mainspace.  I think that with the availability of Jurassic Park franchise, the Merge option has surfaced as a more realistic possibility.  Generally, films that lag in production will constantly be undeveloped as their own articles.  The content is more appropriate in a broader article, like a film series article, until key determinants of production (director, cast, production start date, sometimes release date) surface to warrant the revival of its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that User:Bignole's opinion on the matter is one he only shares, because to him it was wrong to renominate a page for deletion several months since the last nomination, even though people don't seem to be coming to the keep consensus that they did in the other AFD. Rodrigue 23:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I didn't participate in the previous AfD; I merely pointed out that this entire AfD is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS, even if it was created inadvertantly. Again, the proper way to address the issue is to withdraw the nomination and follow the procedures laid out in WP:CONSENSUS for overturning established consensus. No valid reason has been provided for refusing to follow Wikipedia official policy. Alansohn 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an explicit violation. The nominator's reasoning was that time had passed since February, and there was still no evidence of actual production, even with a new paragraph of information about intentions.  In addition, like I said above, Merge was a vote that wasn't proposed in the past AfD, and especially with the existence of Jurassic Park franchise, this vote is particularly reasonable.  The content is still kept; nothing will be lost.  It's just relocated elsewhere, and if the film reaches actual production, great, we can revive the article.  If not, the sparse information can be housed at the franchise article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS states that "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." The nominator sought to delete the article and never mentioned merge as an option. WP:CONSENSUS lays out that "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree." Not a single element of this procedure has been followed. Alansohn 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "May ask." It's not required.  It's not an explicit violation.  And for some reason, you're bolding the sentence that the nominator was re-nominating this for AfD.  I think it's been covered that he wasn't involved with that AfD.  In either case, the content is being kept, just relocated elsewhere.  So the consensus isn't being reversed; it's definitely not the opposite of the previous AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're acting like he was supposed to know. He's only been here for about a year, and in that time he's only contributed 570 times (half of that in May alone). That right there says that he probably wasn't aware of every little policy and guideline on Wikipedia. I've been here for over 2 years, with over 16000 edits and I can say that I still learn new things. Anyone that says they know it all is full of it, not even you, with 35000 edits can say you honestly know everything on Wikipedia. The point being, stop acting like he was supposed to know this. You are making this so personal. Let it go. The AfD has already been started, it's going to end with a "no consensus" anyway. Get over it and let's move on. This is becoming extremely tiresome. You are bogging down the page (even after I asked you to let it go earlier) with the same argument, and the same bolded quotes over and over and over again. THAT is disruptive. We get it, you think he violated consensus, you think he did the wrong thing. Nothing else needs to be said. You've expressed your point. Reiterating it over and over isn't going to change anything. If you think he was so wrong, then bring it up in some abritration, or consult an Admin, but leave it off of here. It's been stated half a dozen times already.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Jurassic Park articles would not be complete without a JP4 page. It will have to be completely re-written once the film is released. --Cuddly Panda 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see no reason to delete. The truthiness of an article is not what determines if it has an article.  Even if JP4 does not come to fruition, the story of it's development can be notable like Duke Nukem Forever.  Cburnett 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But not notable enough for its own article. There are size requirements, and if articles cannot support themselves then they should be merged. Last time I checked, 3 paragraphs worth of information (which may or may not need summarizing themselves was not enough to warrant an entire article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be a good argument to say that this film is like Duke Nukem Forever in that it develops over a long period of time,but thats not the case.

The video game you were referring to was actually being created and produced during that time, but Jurassic Park IV has not even begun filming yet,so its not like they were keep on changing their minds, they just haven't started yet. Rodrigue 17:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Definitely adequately referenced to plenty of reputable citations. And I just get a kick out of  comments which reference "truthiness" and Duke Nukem Forever.  Just wanted to mention that.  Thanks for the laughs!  Smee 09:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Well referenced, some movies have a longer written history when they are not made. Read Terry Gilliam or Orson Wells. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:54, 6 June 2007 (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.