Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scream 4 (2nd 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 was redirect to Scream (film series). JForget 00:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scream 4[edit]

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

Procedural nom on behalf of User:Micwa Skier Dude (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF, this page should be removed until filming has taken place. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note page history, this has been redirected off-and-on to Scream (film series)#Scream 4 (2010). To closing admin, depending on result of discussion, this would be a logical redirect (w/protect?). Skier Dude (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scream (film series) as a WP:CBALL and viable search term. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Williamson has stated he has finished the script for 4 and will be doing 5, and that they have the three principals and Craven is returning. None of this stops this page from being section redirected until cameras roll. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I want to say that I would like it to be redirected and not deleted. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails WP:NFF. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can I go ahead and redirect this? What are we waiting for? Thanks. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should have just been redirected in the first place (as it clearly fails WP:NFF) and protection requested rather than AfD'd but now that it has, I guess it needs to be closed by an admin. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when I filed this AfD I had it in mind to just delete it, then I thought well it would be better to redirect. So now I have to wait for admin approval to redirect? Sounds like I really messed this up. :-\ --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Not really. Consensus seems fairly unanimous as to what should happen. It's nice to have a discussion sometimes... Rob Sinden (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Sources show the film is going to be released by 2011, but it's not even in production yet. No point in letting an article sit with rumors for a year or so; and there's also no point in deleting an article that will eventually qualify to have its own article. I think redirecting is best. Geeky Randy (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2009 (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.