Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man 4 (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 No consensus, default to Keep. Wal ton  Need some help?  19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Film's are unstable by nature when it comes to development and there is no guarantee the film will be made. Same information as last AfD, just more sources citing it. See previous AfD here.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Admin Xoloz has already ignored a recent deletion review, where the consensus was to keep the page deleted, and restored the page. His comments of "Debate here is moot -- Uncle G's new version is beautiful (introduced late in the debate), and should be moved into mainspace" show he couldn't keep an objective opinion about the information at hand. It's clear that there is no concrete evidence the film will be released. The only sources are of Sony expressing and interest in making more films, which does not equate to the films definitely being made.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Spider-Man film series per WP:CRYSTAL. No one from the first three films have renewed their contracts, and no production start date has been set.  There has been only talk about development, and this does not equate actual production.  Sufficient information exists at Spider-Man film series.  This article fails #1 because the film is not "almost certain" to take place.  To avoid making this a subjective argument, I would like to point to the history of Spider-Man, which had been in development hell since the late 1980s.  Superman Returns was not made until 20 years after the last film.  Batman Begins was not made until 8 years after the last film.  The following projects and their years are how long they have been stuck in development, despite announcements being made and having franchise potential: Captain America (2000), Clash of the Titans remake (2003), Deathlok (2001), Ender's Game (2002), The Giver (1994), He-Man (2004), Hot Wheels (2003), Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2004), Rendezvous with Rama (1997), Ronin (1998), Shazam! (2002), Sub-Mariner (2004), Terminator 4 (2003), Y: The Last Man (2003).  Headlines for these can be seen at my subpage.  We already had an acceptable location to report talk about future films at Spider-Man film series, and because this film is merely in development, with no director or cast attached, and no production start date established, it cannot warrant its own article.  If one is inclined to review the page history, rumored cast information was already added to it after its creation .  With the underdevelopment and early nature of an article like this, this only opens the doors to users eager to provide content of speculative nature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some recent examples of speculative content have been added, further indicating that the article, at this point, is not at all able to stand on its own at this point:, . —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- copied essentially from speculation, can't see how it passes CRYSTAL David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 23:14, 12 May 2007
 * Keep, meets WP:CRYSTAL standard. We're talking about the next sequel to a film that has broken all previous box office weekend records, not at all similar to the production issues it had getting off the ground, or to Superman (a franchise that generally sucked at the end of its run) or Ender's (which is held up due to the author).  --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * CRYSTAL has nothing to do with how well a previous film does. It's about what can be considered to be concrete proof that it will come out. Per criteria #1:
 * "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.''"
 * This article does not meet this criteria. It's not like the Olympics. We know the Olympics are going to happen, it's a scheduled event that has been around for decades (scheduling wise). They set the locations ahead of time. Films are not that stable. By nature they can change cast in the blink of an eye, release dates, production dates, or collapse altogether. That does not satisfy the any 1 of the exclusion criteria of CRYSTAL. The "event", that is described in criteria 1, is the film's release. To be in "preparation" requires filming to actually be underway. They don't even have a script, cast, director, crew, production start date, release date; this film is nothing more than a stream of thoughts traveling down the cyber pipeline. Sony says "we want to make more", but that does not equate to "it will happen". Trying to say that Spider-Man 3 is doing so well (when it's only been a week) that it means we WILL have another movie is pure original research. There is no proof that the film doing well will make them produce Spider-Man 4. We might as well create Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6, because Sony said they were going to make those too.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You actually provided the perfect quote for why the article passes crystal, If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Eight sources for three paragraphs is incredibly well-documented. --JayHenry 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I do see the sources cited from reliable publications and many websites have talked about a confirmation for the next Spider-Man series e.g. IMDB. However, when I did a Google search, MSNBC said something like "No stars, no Spider-Man 4". Also, Sony has not mentioned anything about Spider-Man 4 on their website. So for now, its just crystal ballism and there should be some confirmation more or less that the film will be made. Terence 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect: Only a tenth of film projects get made, and whilst Spider-Man 4 is the sequel to three hugely successful films based on an iconic character, this is definite crystal-balling, for a project without a confirmed director or stars. Alientraveller 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The notion that there was any sort of consensus to keep this page deleted at DRV is not accurate at all. Xoloz did not lose his objectivity (in favor of what anyways? his pro-Spider-man 4 bias?) and the claim that he ignored the DRV is both untrue and unfair.  To the subject at hand, I disagree about the interpretations of WP:CRYSTAL above.  Crystal says articles should not contain "unverified speculation."  This article does not -- it contains a confirmed statement from the head of Sony Pictures that they intend to create more Spider-man movies, as well as additional information from reliable sources.  In other words, this is an excellent example about how Wikipedia should handle articles on movies in development.  There's not one single sentence in this article that's misleading, unsourced or in any way inappropriate. --JayHenry 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You should read criteria #1 for what is "exempt" from crystal balling. Spider-Man 4 does not show that it is (and I quote) almost certain to take place. Having reliable sources saying Sony wants to make more films does not negate the fact that we don't know that it will ever happen.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the policy, and I'm sorry that I interpret the policy differently than you do. My comment above explains why I think this article passes crystal, If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.  Eight sources for three paragraphs is exceptionally well-documented.  The purpose of WP:CRYSTAL isn't to keep well-sourced information out of wikipedia, quite the opposite in fact. --JayHenry 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That information isn't out of Wikipedia. It already exists on the (film series) page. It was there before Uncle G ever laid hands on it. It's the same information that was originally on the Spidey 3 page, we just moved it to make room for more relevant information about the actual film that was released. And citing 3 websites that use the exact same interview hardly proves anything about the film. If you follow the logic that you are presenting, we should created the articles for 5 and 6, because right now there is not any information that is specifically pinpointed to part 4. It's all about 4, 5, and 6, and the future of the series as a whole. This statement alone (more specifically, what's in bold),  Both of their contracts were for three movies, and a fourth movie requires fresh contracts, inviting speculation that one, both, or even all three may be replaced, wasn't even stated by someone with the studio, it was an observation made by the writer of the article, but we're presenting "speculation" as if someone has officially stated that if they try and raise their salary we'll replace them.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, did you read the reasoning behind my vote? The same information existed at Spider-Man film series.  We're not trying to suppress any kind of information about it, but it's not appropriate to have an article this early because the development phase is not concrete and speculation is rampant (see the examples I provided).  There is no intention to keep discussion out of Wikipedia; it's a matter of whether the article should exist yet, since the film is not guaranteed to be made.  When there is further information about Spider-Man 4, we will build up at the wiki-link.  At a point where production is all set, we can move that information here to create a full-fledged article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, I just disagree. As for the claims above, you are incorrect, all the "speculation" in the article is well-sourced, including that they intend to continue the series even if Dunst, Maguire and Raimi are not attached (the article doesn't make any claims about salaries).  We should have this page now.  I wasn't suggesting you were trying to surpress information, I am just saying that this article passes WP:CRYSTAL, and really it's not even a close call.  Since "Spider-man 4" has now been referenced in multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, (etc.) I think it's appropriate to have a page for it in addition to having similar information at Spider-Man film series.  People are going to search for Spider-man 4, and when they do, they will have an accurate, well-sourced account of the subject.  Make 5 and 6 redirect here for now, as the information would be redundant for the time being, that's fine.  But no reason to delete, salt or protect any of those pages. --JayHenry 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When people search for Spider-Man 4, they can be appropriately redirected to Spider-Man film series. Please understand, when studios announce that they will make films, this does not always carry through.  Thus, at this point, an article for Spider-Man 4 is extremely misleading and gives the impression that the film will be made.  Just because it breaks box office records does not mean that production will go off without a hitch.  With that argument, a spin-off like Magneto should be in production by now.  However, if you look at the link, it's been in development since 2004, with no sign that it will be fast-tracked to production.  The Hobbit and Halo are similarly stalled franchise potentials.  Information about the Spidey sequels are better housed under the section I've mentioned because if it is not its own article, then there would be no impression that the film will be made.  In addition, it's going to require higher maintenance.  You can see the revisions I provided with rumored information.  An article that is underdeveloped will be filled out with more rumors and speculation than necessary (happening again recently, seen here), which is why it is best to be housed in a section under the film series article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I've heard nothing, and they've said nothing confirming that it is even thought to be in production. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete because Spider-Man_film_series should take care of this since it is all speculation. Weak because I don't care too much about the outcome since this page isn't harmful--just unnecessary. gren グレン 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's stating the possibility of a fourth movie. So why delete it just for it to be recreated?--Hornetman16 01:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why create it if it is only to be deleted? One is far easier to do. Creating an article can be down with a click of a button. If the film never comes out, and we're stuck with nothing but speculation, we'll have to go through this AfD all over again, because people will assume that it not being made automatically makes it notable, which it doesn't.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Spiderman film series and protect. I agree that there will probably be an article at this title in the future, but at this time there is not enough information to create a seperate and encyclopedic article on it.  If and when that situation changes, this article can be recreated. --EMS | Talk 15:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect I think we should redirect it to the article Spiderman.--Dalmation 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To this article (Spider-Man) or to this article (Spider-Man film series)?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect, at least for now. If concrete information on an actual fourth film comes out, the article can be unprotected and recreated. -Sean Curtin 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that, contrary to the claims above, none of the verifiable information here was or is actually present in the articles to which it is being suggested this be redirected to. Redirection would thus lose verifiable content, which is of course not what we should be aiming for as Wikipedia editors.  Also note that, contrary to the statements above, it is now twelve sources for four paragraphs. &#9786; Uncle G 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On May 1, we moved all of the sequel talk from the Spider-Man 3 page to the "film series" page. Just because you rewrote it doesn't mean the information wasn't the same. Here is there information as it was in April, right before we moved it. You just found different source to express the same information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That I wrote it doesn't mean that it isn't the same.  The fact that the information in this article is clearly not present at the link that you give, is what means that it isn't the same.  There was no mention of SPE's statements, nor of what Maguire's said after the theatrical release, for examples.  Indeed, there still isn't.  Mis-characterizing this as a "rewrite" is to ignore the fact that the verifiable information in this article was not, and is not, actually present in the other articles to which you are pointing.  Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing missing about what Maguire said was about the years it would take to develop a script (in the version I linked). It states in there that he said he'd come back if the whole team did. As for the SPE statement, the version I linked had Sam Raimi stating that Sony was going to do a 4,5,6, because he was just reiterating what Sony had already said. So, yes, it is the same.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple reliable sources. I would not mind redirection either. Ab e g92 contribs 17:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify if you want to keep or redirect, please? It can be either kept as an article or temporarily redirected to the film series article.  The plan is that when there is enough information to show that the film will be produced, the redirect will be changed back into an actual article.  The argument has been that while there are sources that reflect the intent to film Spider-Man 4, the lack of a director or cast at this point does not ensure that the film will be made. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a result of people who 'just don't like it' when they got the WP:CRYSTAL explanations over at SM3's talk page. repeatedly. This pretty much counts as a content fork. ThuranX 21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything salvageable and redirect to Spider-Man film series per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CFORK. Current article duplicates content of aforementioned article and does not have enough certainty to stand on its own. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but this article seems to fulfill the requirements to keep based on policy. The first sentence of WP:CRYSTAL is "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The article is well-sourced. I see no problem here.  . V .  [Talk 06:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with documenting verifiable speculation, but this does not equate the actual production of the film Spider-Man 4. A case should first be made to show that the film will actually be produced, instead of talked about, before permitting an article based on it.  That's why I advocate placing future information at Spider-Man film series and move it to this film article if (not when, intent does not guarantee production; see development hell) it enters actual production.  There are still obstacles -- contract renegotiations, budget constraints, script development (Maguire himself said this would take a few years) -- that need to be overcome before production can be guaranteed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you want merger, not deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage, and requires that edit history be retained; and thus your actual opinion is to keep. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe his opinion is to keep the information, but delete the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The article has good sources, and it's about a sequel to a movie that's breaking all box office records madly! Spider Man 4 is being planned by SONY and the content on this article isn't false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.178.44.75 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You guys need to realize that we aren't denying the content of the article. We are saying that there isn't proof that the film WILL come out. The only thing that article expresses is the want of Sony to make more. It does not say when, how, or with whom.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, by redirecting the article (which you actually did) you are denying the content of the article, by the simple act of blanking it. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't deny anything, as I've stated that what YOU wrote is the same as what was already there. You just used different sources to convey the same message. You are trying to play the semantics game of what's merging/deleting/denying.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This version of the article looks highly sourced to reputable citations. 12 is pretty good, in this instance, though I don't know how many the previous version had.  Smee 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
 * The 2006-04-06 and 2007-01-30 versions that were deleted had zero sources. The former comprised solely an infobox and a completely speculative cast list.  The latter comprised solely an infobox and a completely speculative 2-line plot summary.  Neither comprised any content resmbling the content of the article at hand. Uncle G 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of those "sources" actually say "Spider-Man 4 is or will be made." It's just people talking about their future involvement in a possible fourth movie. We have no basis for the name. ' 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ... apart from the 3 sources that quote people saying that Spider-Man 4 will be made, in as many words, and the 4 sources that use the name "Spider-Man 4" in their very titles. Uncle G 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 sources quoting what they think, not what is fact. It is their opinion that it will be made. Do they know when? Do they know how much it will cost? Do they know who is going to direct, write, star in it? Umm... No. Verifiable speculation doesn't change the fact that it's still speculation. They don't know. Warner Brothers thought they knew another Superman movie was going to be made right after Superman IV, but it took them 20 years to get something off the ground and into actual production. That right there proves that you can talk all you want, but if you don't DO then it doesn't matter. Sony hasn't take any other steps in making Spider-Man 4 beyond trying to negiotiate with David Koepp. Negotiations don't mean anything other than "let's talk". That could easily fall through if he requests too much money. As for the name, all of the sequels have simply had a numerical identifying on them, so people calling is "Spider-Man 4" are simply following the trend.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Spider-Man films and next time do this without wasting time with a deletion discussion. Nothing to debate here. Encyclopedic content, with references, mererly needs editoral discussion on the talk pages to decide the location. No need for AfD to get involved. Remember Merge=Keep; location of content within the encyclopedia is discussed on talk pages not at AfD. Carcharoth 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've put on the merger tags, so I guess this AfD can be closed. I put a request into "Proposed Mergers" and I think this merge may be a bit controversial on the idea that people disagree what satisfies crystal ball, and where information should be listed when it's in a grey area.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Several reliable sources have confirmed it - • The Giant Puffin •  13:37, 18 May 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.