Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurassic Park IV: The New Approach
Definitely. What is most important to Wikipedia and |Notability guidelines is that there is considerable coverage about the http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=%22Jurassic%20Park%20IV%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn fourth sequel.  While yes, it seems to be in production hell and likely does not merit a seperate article, a merge and then redirect to a section at Jurassic Park (franchise) that would speak about the |well-documented aspirations toward a fourth-in-the-series would be quite sensible. As even if the fourth film were never to be made, the subject of the 4th has itself received enough coverage in |reliable sources to meet |criteria and so merit inclusion and citation at the one place where it best serves the project. '''Addendum''' |Reliable sources addressing the 4th sequel: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/nov/10/jurassic-park-four ''Guardian'', http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/11/bleak_outlook_for_hollywood_in_near_future ''State News'', http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEDRcJEKVLDfHL ''MovieWeb'', http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Blendcast-Three-Men-and-the-Shop-s-Fattest-Goose-15640.html ''Cinema Blend'', http://movies.ign.com/articles/104/1043762p1.html ''IGN'', http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6462199/20-of-the-most-shameless-cultural-franchises.html ''The Telegraph'', http://www.widescreen-vision.de/?menu=0601&s=thread&bid=3075&tid=8324199&x=2 ''Widescreen Vision'', http://www.horrormagazine.it/notizie/4564/ ''Horror Magazine'', etc.  The subject has been covered in sources even as far back as 2001 http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Jurassic+Park+IV%22&cf=all. Continued coverage of the 4th merits inclusion in some manner, even if not as a seperate article
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)