Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Superman Sequel


 * 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 of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Superman Sequel
It's untitled for one. Two WP:NOT and three Superman just came out today. BJK 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ---Charles 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystal ball. Let's wait till a sequel is actually officially announced, first. I haven't heard of anything beyond the usual "if this is a hit we may do a follow-up" talk that every film generates. Odds are there will be a Superman Returns 2 but it's premature to write an article on it now. 23skidoo 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, crystal-balling. --Coredesat talk 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, how is it crystal-balling if everything in it is verifiable facts? Just because the movie doesn't have a name doesn't mean there can't be an article about it (there obviously will be at some point). We know that there will be a sequel, we know that it is currently untitled, no crystal-balling. Yonatanh 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The film just came out today as with all big blockbusters there is always talk of a sequel. The article should wait till the talks are more concrete and we have a name for the sequel. BJK 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMDB isn't often wrong about the existence of productions of sequels. Yonatanh 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMDB is wrong all the time about movies in "pre-production". Fan1967 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Too many things can, and often do, go wrong before the cameras start rolling. Until filming actually starts this has to be regarded as crystal ball. Fan1967 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Artw 23:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete although the project has apparently been announced, should probably wait until more details (including a working title) become available. For now, keep any information in the main article for Superman Returns because this is more than just scrying. SM247 My Talk  23:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, crystal-balling. --DaveG12345 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against recreation once a working title and more reliable details are released. Yamaguchi先生 08:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete You guys convinced me but I don't know how to do the strikethrough line. Yonatanh 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Like that. BJK 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought it was .  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm test, test well your right I'm wrong oops. BJK 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete whether there will be a sequal or not, this article will eventually be useless. Antmoney85 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There will be plenty of time to create an article for the (potential) sequel without maintaining an entry full of "planned" and "expected" verbiage. It's just a placeholder at this point. Mr Snrub 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because Singer's already given solid fact in interviews regarding his intent for the series, including use of villians, characters, themes and storylines. That's not only fact, it's horse's mouth fact.ThuranX 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if what ThuranX says is true it should be cited in the article. And I would change my vote to weak delete.  I really need to get around to writing an essay about film notability (or any one else could too).  Eluchil404 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Citations added as requested. Also, I'd like to move the page to a more proper title, Untitled Superman Returns Sequel, as 'Untitled Superman Sequel' reads like being a Superman V which picks up right after Superman IV.ThuranX 17:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirm Delete the cited articles confirm that no official decision has been made yet. That Bryan Singer is willing to do a sequal and has ideas for it can be mentioned in the Superman Returns article.  Unless it is greenlit, there is no basis for not considering this crystal-ballism, IMO.  Note the essay that will write tonight suggests waiting until a film is actually in production before begining an article.  Eluchil404 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - And please note that all of the above delete votes were made based on this substantially less-reputable version of the page (I would have voted delete as well). The page is now cited, verifiable and presents only the facts. Just because a film has no title doesn't mean it can't have an article. Finally, this article has future potential, and we don't delete articles just because their content isn't up to scratch (alternatives to deletion). &mdash;EatMyShortz 04:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, if hesitantly. I think the key is that the film doesn't have a title yet. At this point, sequel speculation could easily be kept in the Superman Returns article. Once the film gets a title or starts production, then it would be reasonable to start an article for itself. Until then, I don't like the speculative nature of the article title, and I just don't feel it stands on its own yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wait for useful information to come out (besides a sentence or two of which actors were in the first one and would most likely return), then redo this. ViceroyInterus 21:07, 5 July 2006 (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.