Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anaconda 4: Trail of Blood[edit]

Unnotable future film with no significant coverage at this time and only a vague "coming soon" date. All info taken straight from IMDB. Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice against recreation when it actually airs and can be verified. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Temp keep~~ ~~as I will be correcting the article's flaws over the next few minutes. The film is completed and slated to air in December. If there's coverage, I'll find it.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bring back when there is coverage. I made the article much prettier per MOS, but Collectonion is right... there's just not enough out there yet. Maybe in 6 weeks? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rotten tomatoes is enough 3rd party coverage for me.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when it is released it will obviously be notable enough for inclusion. Whether it will be released or not is not really in doubt, since principal photography has already been done and there's money riding on it. Wikipedia does not and should not have a policy against including articles on products that are currently being put together; rather, the policies against future events and products exists because such things are often difficult to verify, or may not exist at all in the future. Those policies do not apply here. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existence of the film is not in question here. It is understood that the film is planned for release. However, the policy on Future Films requires that a film meet general notability guidelines for significant coverage -- meaning something more than a mention. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFF which requires significant coverage. An internet search has not found any significant coverage in sources which will allow the film to pass general notability guidelines. The only information is pre-marketing mentions as an upcoming film. Until it is released and reviewed the film should not have a stand-alone article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or, better yet, create a "Anaconda (film series)" page and merge both Anaconda 3 and Anaconda 4 into that page, as BOTH are non-notable films. Being on Rotten Tomatoes does not make something notable, just like being on IMDb does not. Notability is defined as "significant coverage", neither of those sites actually provide. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "notability" is not defined as "significant coverage." I'm afraid you're incorrect. --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.