Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice Age: Continental Drift

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 delete, both per CSD 5 and the agreement here that there is still no case for anything but a redirect which is left at editorial discretion. Tikiwont (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Continental Drift

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

Most speculation right now, can't find any solid sourcing for this on Google. • ɔ ʃ → 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the article deletion, if you'd read the references I provided you see that nothing is speculation, but I'll remove "Queen Latifah as Ellie" anyway.--ShellyLover (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says none of the details are even out yet. Please read WP:CRYSTAL first. • ɔ ʃ → 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect - Redirection to the mentioned section of a bigger article is a better option which I hadn't considered. Which Google are you looking at lol? http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Ice+Age%3A+Continental+Drift gives 70,000 results, the first page are all established media websites and the inline citations in the article are adequate. --Pump me up 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) --Pump me up 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. Quotes mean everything. • ɔ ʃ → 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now... and set redirect to Ice Age (film series)#Ice Age:Continental Drift (2012). Just last March a premature Ice Age 4 was redirected.[1] Yes... sources have announced it is upcoming,[2] but that's all they're tellin us... the 3-D film has been "announced" and is "upcoming".[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]... and while in the studio's race for the almighty comsumer dollar, the film is more likley than not.... that's all they share... the announcememt... and not much else. Its simply too soon and there is as of yet not enough sourcable information to create a properly sourced independent article. . WIkipedia can wait until there is much more and then recreate or undelte this current version. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support a redirect for now, per MQS's reasoning and the Ice Age 4 redirect. • ɔ ʃ → 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per MQS. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Created by multi-blocked and banned sockpuppetter User:Amryose16 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect': Speedy delete the current article since it has been created by an editor whose editing privileges are revoked, and redirect to the film series page. This time the name is real. Mike Allen 03:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1. per AnmaFinotera, 2. per WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one other than the banned user is advocating the article remain. If deleted as result of its author being banned, a redirect for a reasonable search term would still serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 8 May 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.