Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 5 (film)

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 Terminator_(franchise)#Future. redirect Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 5 (film)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Movie not yet even in pre-production, merely in development. E. Fokker (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terminator (franchise) – Future, which has more verifiable content than this article, which is exceedingly speculative. No recreation under this title, but no problem with creation of an article on the fifth film if it does begin filming, in line with the notability guidelines for future films. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erik. No reason to have this as of now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Looks to be based mostly on speculation and hears-it-on-teh-internetz rumors, not to mention a good deal of wishful thinking on the part of whoever wrote the clearly POV fan puff-piece text. One source is simply a producer who hasn't had anything to do with the franchise in years saying she'd "love" to make another one, while the other is an article from 2 years ago, before the 4th film even came out, loaded with admitted speculation & forecasting of events that never happened since the 4th film tanked. Also, to the nom: It's not even in development. It's not even past the talking-about-maybe-wanting-to-do-another-one stage. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the most recent news is this month's article from Deadline.com. Regardless, still way too premature for a stand alone article. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'd say delete but it'll just get recreated. If it's a redirect it slows the process down of recreating the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erik (talk · contribs), Yaksar (talk · contribs) and Bignole (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect The current article is not worth keeping even for history purposes. There currently exists a redirect at Terminator 5 so I'm not sure about the utility of a redirect at "Terminator 5 (film)", but redirects are cheap. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no justification for an article as already outlined by others above. There is no need for retaining this as a redirect since it not helpful considering Terminator 5 already exists as a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per just about everybody. This is hardly confirmed at all. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Can someone look into Universal Soldier: A New Dimension. It was made by the same user (who, while a good contributor, seemed to mostly create movies in development or copyvios)? Originally I thought it was fine since there appeared to be trailers and posters, although further investigation proved that these were all fan-made. I'd love some input before I started an AfD, and sorry for going off topic (although the SNOWiness of this discussion probably means distraction doesn't mean much). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The latest news on that project is this. It is scheduled to start filming sometime in March, it appears. I would be fine with a quick merge to Universal Soldier (series) (which is unfortunately not in stellar shape) to be undone if filming is verified to have begun. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm pretty crappy with merges where the articles are of dubious quality, so I'll probably hold off on doing it, although I certainly encourage anyone who's more capable and has some spare time to go for it. Thanks for clearing that up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (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.