![]() | James Bond Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
Why is Bond 23 redirected to Bond 22, we know Daniel Craig is James Bond, thats it. I know there isn't enough info to start this article but why does it redirect to Bond 22. 202.80.179.207 06:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it, we know almost nothing about either movie, except the same basic facts. btw its not the same article Ace Class Shadow.
The addition of the tag is unfounded. It says here: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."
— Eickenberg 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added salary info regarding Craig's deal for the remaining two Bond films. I think it gives credence to the film being in production, and hence its notability. -- Madchester 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There are now at least 2 major publications -- Variety and Guardian Unlimited -- reporting on aspects of this film. Plus there is precedent for this as Bond 22 was announced several months before filming even began on Casino Royale. There's more than enough here for a starter article. 23skidoo 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not the author of this article but...as mentioned in 23skidoo's post above. this article now has two major publications reporting on it and aspects of it. They should be more than enough to allow the article to stay. The previous delete was a rightful delete but this proposal appears to be based on the fact that the article was deleted in 2006 and not on the merits of the article in the present day. - X201 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference from the Guardian on how much Craig is being paid states approximately how much money he will be paid to "to don the black tuxedo a third time." This appears to verify that Craig will portray Bond in Bond 23. Cliff smith 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | James Bond Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
Why is Bond 23 redirected to Bond 22, we know Daniel Craig is James Bond, thats it. I know there isn't enough info to start this article but why does it redirect to Bond 22. 202.80.179.207 06:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it, we know almost nothing about either movie, except the same basic facts. btw its not the same article Ace Class Shadow.
The addition of the tag is unfounded. It says here: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."
— Eickenberg 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added salary info regarding Craig's deal for the remaining two Bond films. I think it gives credence to the film being in production, and hence its notability. -- Madchester 16:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There are now at least 2 major publications -- Variety and Guardian Unlimited -- reporting on aspects of this film. Plus there is precedent for this as Bond 22 was announced several months before filming even began on Casino Royale. There's more than enough here for a starter article. 23skidoo 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not the author of this article but...as mentioned in 23skidoo's post above. this article now has two major publications reporting on it and aspects of it. They should be more than enough to allow the article to stay. The previous delete was a rightful delete but this proposal appears to be based on the fact that the article was deleted in 2006 and not on the merits of the article in the present day. - X201 13:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The reference from the Guardian on how much Craig is being paid states approximately how much money he will be paid to "to don the black tuxedo a third time." This appears to verify that Craig will portray Bond in Bond 23. Cliff smith 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)