Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator: Armageddon


 * 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 as per WP:NFF. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Terminator: Armageddon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although there seems to be some kind of new Terminator that has been "green-lit", there's no evidence that it's called Terminator: Armageddon. In any case, it hasn't started filming, nor is there even a script as far as I can see. Until then it's rumours and hints and basically one big crystal ball. ... disco spinster   talk  23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Would fail WP:CRYSTAL anyway. All that I can find on it is this apparent fan fiction. a little   insignificant  00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know if my opinion matters here, but I nominated this page for deletion as there is no note of the title on Google, and there is already a 'planned sequel' section in the main series article tha covers all known facts about the seque--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)l.
 * Don't Delete On the Terminator franchise page, the next sequel is credited as Terminator: Armageddon so I took the cue from there. All of the other details on the page have been backed up with references which include interviews with McG and others, including Robert Patrick, talking about the movie and it's planned plot. I'm sorry but I'd like to see it kept.User talk:DarkPassenger 12:33, 14 July 2009 (GMT)
 * Delete per WP:NFF and a lack of reliable coverage from independent sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since filming has not started yet. Until it does, info about this belongs at Terminator (franchise), as noted above by Williamsburgland.  Cliff smith  talk  17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that everything on this film was posted by user DarkPassenger; clearly fan fiction--Williamsburgland (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and set redirect to Terminator (film series). And with thanks to an willing editor (call him a "fan" of not) who contributes to the project. Allow seperate article when filming commences. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF; all there is to go on at this point are ideas that McG has expressed about possible directions for the next film. Nothing concrete, and since the project has not even really entered the conceptual stage at this point then there is nothign encyclopedic to cover about it. There's also nothing to merge, as the franchise article already covers what little verifiable info there is about possible future films. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and full-protect. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I take issue with this page being called a fanfiction - I created it having sought out information given by the people who are making the trilogy. Again, the name Armageddon was listed on the Terminator franchise page as the sequel following Salvation - and has nothing to do with any fan fiction to the best of my knowledge since I did not add the armageddon comment on the franchise page.User talk:DarkPassenger 12:33, 14 July 2009 (GMT)
 * Struck out second !vote. ...  disco spinster   talk  19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing is confirmed under paper. All of it, including McG's ideas are pure and simple plans that haven't been finalized Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing out there listing armageddon as the next film's title, and this has since been removed from the franchise page...furthermore merging this article makes no sense as there is nothing to merge; every verifiable and cited fact is already covered in the main article, and does so in more encyclopedic terms. This is pure speculation painted as fact...frankly I don't understand what the debate is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 July 2009 (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.