- 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 Rio (film)#Sequel. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rio 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's basically a case of WP:NOTYET and WP:CRYSTAL. There really isn't enough evidence to establish notability for an independent article, and really I have no problem with the article just redirecting to Rio (film)#Sequel. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, it's WP:NotJustYet. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel sounds good to me, as well. I agree that there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage to support a separate article at this time ([[WP:NotJustYet). Gongshow Talk 05:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually don't know whether the name of the article is going to be called Rio 2, when I mentioned this, the creator changed the citations in the article to "Untitled Rio sequel". All another reason this shouldn't merit an article of its own. Yet. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason I did that was I've seen articles titles such as Untitled Star Trek sequel and Untitled Thomas and Friends Film Project, and thought it would be more fitting to have the article named something like this. But since it's under articles for deletion right now, I'm not going to rename the article itself at the moment.--BarrettM82 Contact 10:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason those articles are included are because they have significant coverage to comply with Wikipedia's notability guideline (the Untitled Star Trek sequel has 46 inline citations alone). Since there isn't much sources to say that the sequel to Rio will be created, it's just simply WP:TOOSOON for the article to be written at this time. When there is firm evidence and significant coverage to say that Rio 2 will be created, then the article may be written, but as of now, really you can still post information regarding this sequel at Rio (film)#Sequel. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless I misunderstood something about the WP:SIGCOV link, but if you search "Rio sequel" on Google, you find sites citing what Sergio Mendes said about Rio 2 being likely quite often, or does it refer multiple sources with different citing different information? Back to the subject of redirect or article, now that I think about it, a redirect may be best for now.--BarrettM82 Contact 23:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sergio Mendes gave one claim, one sentence, that triggered a slight burst in news. This "significant coverage" does not qualify the notability guideline for future films, which tells us:
In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.
- It's simply too soon for really anything to be put on the article that's good and solid, as you saw yourself when an IP put Anne Hathaway onto the article. Until significant coverage is available to say that Rio 2 is going to be made, then cover it at Rio (film)#Sequel for now. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON, no verifiable info on a sequel at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel per WP:NotJustYet. If/when this film meets the criteria for inclusion, this article title should be redirected to the actual title of the film instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rio (film)#Sequel as per WP:NFF, which this clearly fails. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2012 (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.