Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strangers: Part II


 * 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 per CSD G5 by NuclearWarfare. Non-admin closure.  Swarm  Talk 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Strangers: Part II

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A disputed PROD; tag removed without addressing the crucial flaw, which is that films not yet in production -- as this is specifically stated not to be -- don't meet Wikipedia's future films policy (nor the general notability guideline) and contains no reliable sources. This should possibly be a redirect to the original film, as per WP:NFF, but given the article's history I thought an authoritative disposition here was best. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Strangers: It seems that the film is gong to happen, one day. .  IMO, you probably could have done a redirect safely to begin with. —  Mike   Allen   02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's make a search for sources that might meet WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. The real title is The Strangers 2.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Incubate or redirect I did some cleanup to the article, and in a search to see if this might meet the caveats of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG, I found
 * Variety 1: "Strangers' returning"
 * Bloody Disgusting: ''The Strangers 2' Director in Final Talks..."
 * Beyond Hollywood: "The Strangers Sequel is Official"
 * Variety 2: "Rogue's 'Strangers' set for sequel"
 * Variety 3: "Bertino no stranger to Rogue".
 * So it seems likely it's coming... all it took was using the right title.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep for now. See above sources. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 16 January 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.