Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fast and the Furious 4 (3rd 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 wasSpeedy delete as WP:CSD - recreation of deleted article.-- Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious 4
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Third nomination. Previous incarnations have been devoid of information, and this one isn't much better. It's got an IMDB page, but I can't see anything on it. I also can't find any news sources which source the claim that the movie was "recently announced and set for release" - all I can see on a Google News search is a couple of week-old rumors that Vin Diesel might be playing in it, and a month-old rumor regarding its director. Neither of these rise to the level of reliable sources, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) DELETE again. Was deleted twice before? Isn't this speediable as a repost? Will tag as such. If I'm missing something, let me know. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until such a time as a director, major cast list, and release date can be supplied by reliable sources independent of the film's makers and stars. -- saberwyn 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: because its been deleted before, and it's non-notible.--Sunny910910 (talk 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G4 as a recreation of previously deleted article.--Jayron32| talk | contribs 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per multiple deletions and a sack full of small glassy spheres. ThuranX 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Speedy Delete is probably the correct policy based option. But it does look like it's going to happen based on semi-reliable sources.  Are we better off keeping a stub or doing AFD #4, #5, #6, & #7 until we finally end up with a keep article.--Cube lurker 05:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that stem from something more substantial than rumors? If so, I'd be glad to withdraw the nomination. But no matter how widespread a rumor is (with rare exceptions), that still doesn't add up to a reliable source. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt This has been delete multiple times. IF such a movie gets officially announced, then it can be allowed to be recreated. TJ Spyke 06:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be hesitant to salt the article, as it'd make it more difficult to create an article if/when the movie is actually announced. Salting should generally be reserved for articles which should never be created at all. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Very little is known about the plot"...insert your own joke here, but there still aren't any reliable sources to prove this movie is going to be in existence. Smashville 14:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, premature It's just way too early for this article. • Lawrence Cohen  16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete No need to have an article (right now) that: 1. Says "Very little is known about the plot" and 2. Is about a film being set for release in 2009. —Signed by KoЯn fan71 My TalkSign Here! 00:31, 12 October 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.