Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster's Inc. 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 speedy delete under G5. — ξ xplicit  05:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Monster's Inc. 2

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page is apparently being used as a grammatically-incorrect alternate title to avoid the previously-established consensus at the Monsters Inc. 2 redirect that this subject does not warrant an article. It should either be moved to Monsters Inc. 2 if it is agreed that it now qualifies for its own article, or deleted as an implausible typo of the correct spelling.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too little reliable information at the moment to negate WP:CRYSTAL. The current redirect is fine. Deor (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete CSD:G5 "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." The page creator is one of at least three sockpuppets of User:Onelifefreak2007 who have been vandalising Wikipedia in the past 12 hours. See Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not sure I can find the "clear consensus" to redirect the other spelling. Nevertheless, either spelling seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL.  IMDb categorise it as "In development", while the Guardian and a few other news papers merely confirm that it has been announced that the film is to be released in 2012, though since the production has been held up for various reasons already (hardly WP worthy stuff, given that most films suffer setbacks) we need to take that announcement with a pinch of salt.  Even if the release date were 100% confirmed, though, we still don't have enough verifiable information for an article, IMO  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per AussieLegend, in fact --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily saying a clear or even formal consensus (I haven't seen a discussion), but looking at the history of the redirect at the other spelling seems to indicate that these changes have been rejected at that page, and that this one is being used to escape attention from the editors who turned the correct spelling into a redirect.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered if that was what you meant. Fair enough and thanks for the clarification  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: I would had said redirect to the first film's article. I have already done this for the real article. But since it's been created by a banned user and is misspelled, it needs to be speedy deleted. Mike  Allen  23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per AussieLegend; having had a look at the SPI, there seems to be sufficient evidence to support this.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This film also fails WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (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.