Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strangers: Part II (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 The Strangers#Sequel. Consensus seems to be that this film does not find itself with sufficient independent notability yet, but may do so in future. The article history has been left intact so info can be merged to the target article, and potentially the article can be spun out again when more coverage is available. ~ mazca ^talk 12:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangers: Part II

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

No source found that proves filming has started. The latest information I can find is that casting was beginning in April 2010. Also the article was created by a recent blocked editor. Mike Allen 05:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Looking at the old AFD, I suggested it be redirected to The Strangers#Sequel. I guess that is the right thing to do at the moment. Mike Allen 05:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual title:[1] (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect Yes... editor received a 31-hour temp-block.[2] Article was created before any block and was not the reason for the block. I had a hunch this might return as an earlier version was deleted instead of redirected as a plausible search term last January. No big surprise. A search for sources to suport a redirect find Variety (1), Bloody Disgusting, CanMag, Beyond Hollywood, Variety (2), Variety (3), Empire Online, Dread Central, Cinemagia, SciFi Universe, Horror Magazine, Insider, Le Journal de Québec, and others. As it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... and as we do have sources for referencing, a redirect to The Strangers#Sequel is per guideline. Of course, incubation is an option as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the account was just blocked indef as a "Vandalism-only account". So.. I guess we won't be seeing a rationale from him/her on this article. Mike Allen 06:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, your suggestion to redirect to The Strangers#Sequel is quite sensible, and too... setting (and maybe protecting) a redirect might prevent a premature recreation of this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes I agree with some salt. If casting started four months ago.. they should be moving into production by now? Sounds like the pre-production is slowing down. (The following message is basically for User:Forteana who has commented on the talk page) This is why we wait until principal photography commence to make a whole article. Nine times out of ten there isn't enough for a whole article anyway since it already fits quite well in a section of the previous film or franchise page. Especially when all of the sources basically say the same thing. Mike Allen 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page for the film shall need to be made sometime: probably within the next few months if and when more information is given to the press. It's pretty good so far, and I'll work to make it better, so why must it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forteana (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stated... because per the criteria for judging film articles, it has not begun filming and does not have enough coverage to merit it being considered for inclusion per the notability standards for unreleased projects. Please see the governing policy for articles about future events. However, your observation is correct, in that the subject may quite likely merit an article in a few months. An article's author, or any interested editor, may ask for, and is usually be granted, "userfication"... which is a move of the article to a non-article user-workspace to continue efforts at improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, then; if the page is indeed deleted, I request userfication. However, do The Ghosts of Hanley House or The Rats Are Coming! The Werewolves Are Here! have enough "coverage"? Forteana (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closer of this AFD will note your userfication request, and if (likey) granted, the article will be moved to such as User:Forteana/workspace/The Strangers: Part II. As for your other questions, I will answer them on your talk page, as it is preferred to keep an AFD discussion focused on the issue at hand. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the original film article. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe merge anything verifiable that isn't already in the relevant section. Either way, it isn't independently notable yet, but it's a plausible search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (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.