Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin and the Chipmunks 4

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. postdlf (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 4[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF - shooting is not confirmed to have started. Even then, there aren't enough reliable sources to confirm notability this early. Beerest355 Talk 02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No credible sources confirming the preliminary existence of a 4th Alvin and the Chipmunks production. There is currently no information from Twentieth Century Fox or Dunes Entertainment regarding a sequel. Jake (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All right then, redirect it to its Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked sequel section. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 03:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the fan-made "poster" swiped from a Facebook compilation page. Nothing announced and sources are merely parking pages for a maybe title and a exhibitor publication listing maybe dates. Nate • (chatter) 05:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not aware that the poster was fan made because of the logos on the bottom corners. I've seen fanmade posters in the past that did not have any studio logos on the poster. But as for what I think should be done with the article: redirect to the article. I'll use Rio 2 as an example since that is the last article I created that was a candidate for deletion. It was a maybe then, but it ended up being a movie that is going to happen. That is my reasoning for the article being a redirect for now (as it was before I created an article).--BarrettM82 Contact 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should never be any reason to take a random Facebook picture of a tentative movie article and use it as the infobox image as you can easily find film posters pretty much anywhere, and why would a 2015 film project have any key art in the first place. Just because it has logos doesn't mean that it's real; it's called Photoshop and it's very easy to do. In fact if you had done some WP:BEFORE and typed 'alvin and the chipmunks' into Google Image Search, #4 is this image, with Alvin reversed and the background changed. Film studios never re-use images for past films with sequels. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of photoshop. I don't use it, but I use GIMP, so I know what can be done with photo manipulation programs. But I wasn't aware that studios didn't re use images. Well I knew about that image you linked to, but I figured it was an early poster [for Alvin and the Chipmunks 4]. An early poster for Ice Age 4, for example, used stock images from the first, if I remember right. But after this, I doubt that one was real now, but who knows. It was in a photograph, not an image like this one.--BarrettM82 Contact 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (add a redirect after, if desired) - Fails all applicable criteria with flying colors. Nothing to salvage. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2013 (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.