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 keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete. Early in the discussion, things were trending towards draftify but after some improvements were made to the articles, sentiment was clearly to keep. --
RoySmith(talk)01:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Move all to Draft namespace – Source searches I have performed for these historic films are demonstrating notability. In their current states, these articles are better in Draft namespace for the time being, where they can improved. North America100022:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
DraftifyKeepUser:Ryathoma is a new editor and has been creating a lot of stubs, some of which have been incorrectly tagged as
WP:A1 when it is quite clear even from one sentence what the context is – old Columbia Pictures movies. They are probably notable as releases from a major Hollywood studio and should be moved to draftspace and worked on there, not deleted.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep as they now appear to be valid stubs.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete if the bulk creator won't give a reference to where they discovered the names and years, it's a waste of everyone's time to keep this as a draft. If they can provide a reference, I support keeping them as articles in main space, even if there's only 1 sentence of text and 1 reference.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Several of this editor's earlier stubs were moved to Draft and then deleted as "Obvious hoax" - despite being findable on TCM database and imdb (see
Draft:Speed Mad and
Draft:Man Against Woman). Will these new articles, if draftified, disappear similarly?
PamD07:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to draft. That's what I've been doing with these, and I think it's the least bad of the available options (deletion as "hoax" was surely a mistake). The editor shows no sign of willingness to communicate (zero talk-space edits), so it's possible there's an insuperable language problem here.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep All: Thanks to the energetic help of the Wikipedia community every article is sourced now with external links to IMDb / TCM /
AFI (which should be reliable enough) and has categories added. --
MovieFex (
talk)
20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: So long as these articles can be properly referenced, I see no need for deletion. All seem to be notable films.
ExRat (
talk)
22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep all as stubs. There are many books on westerns and the history of Hollywood likely to provide some information, as well as contemporary sources. The articles are now valid stubs, now offering useful information. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
10:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per MovieFex. 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
L3X1 (
talk •
contribs) 23 August 2017 (UTC)
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.
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 keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete. Early in the discussion, things were trending towards draftify but after some improvements were made to the articles, sentiment was clearly to keep. --
RoySmith(talk)01:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Move all to Draft namespace – Source searches I have performed for these historic films are demonstrating notability. In their current states, these articles are better in Draft namespace for the time being, where they can improved. North America100022:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)reply
DraftifyKeepUser:Ryathoma is a new editor and has been creating a lot of stubs, some of which have been incorrectly tagged as
WP:A1 when it is quite clear even from one sentence what the context is – old Columbia Pictures movies. They are probably notable as releases from a major Hollywood studio and should be moved to draftspace and worked on there, not deleted.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep as they now appear to be valid stubs.--
Pawnkingthree (
talk)
18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete if the bulk creator won't give a reference to where they discovered the names and years, it's a waste of everyone's time to keep this as a draft. If they can provide a reference, I support keeping them as articles in main space, even if there's only 1 sentence of text and 1 reference.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: Several of this editor's earlier stubs were moved to Draft and then deleted as "Obvious hoax" - despite being findable on TCM database and imdb (see
Draft:Speed Mad and
Draft:Man Against Woman). Will these new articles, if draftified, disappear similarly?
PamD07:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to draft. That's what I've been doing with these, and I think it's the least bad of the available options (deletion as "hoax" was surely a mistake). The editor shows no sign of willingness to communicate (zero talk-space edits), so it's possible there's an insuperable language problem here.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep All: Thanks to the energetic help of the Wikipedia community every article is sourced now with external links to IMDb / TCM /
AFI (which should be reliable enough) and has categories added. --
MovieFex (
talk)
20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: So long as these articles can be properly referenced, I see no need for deletion. All seem to be notable films.
ExRat (
talk)
22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep all as stubs. There are many books on westerns and the history of Hollywood likely to provide some information, as well as contemporary sources. The articles are now valid stubs, now offering useful information. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
10:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per MovieFex. 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
L3X1 (
talk •
contribs) 23 August 2017 (UTC)
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.