Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park 4

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 keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (pure housekeeping) (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park 4[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film has been delayed indefinitely. So i think this article should be merged back to where ever it came from since the film never entered production. Koala15 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator We have found an alternative. Koala15 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as a film article, but as a historical article about development for a film. The development history is extensive enough to warrant a stand-alone article that is essentially split from the franchise article. To make this article work, it should not use the film infobox or film-related categories because there is no film at hand, nor is there any guarantee of one. Lastly, you proposed a merge, and AfD is not the proper venue for that. Per WP:MERGE, a discussion should have been started on the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 10. Snotbot t • c » 00:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough reliable sources already on the article to establish notability (though the SPS can be pruned). Recommend post-AfD rename to "Development of Jurassic Park 4" (or, alternatively, "Production of"), since that's what this article is really about until the film is confirmed. czar · · 02:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea about renaming it. That will help clearly reflect that it is not a film article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well written, with reliable sources, and is notable. 121.97.142.148 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would definitely support the name change to "Development of Jurassic Park 4". Koala15 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Koala15, do you want to continue the AfD process? You can withdraw, and with no arguments for deletion, someone else can close this. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep and close. Nomination has been withdrawn, no Delete opinions showing. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2013 (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.