Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. PC78 (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey

No evidence of any notabilty. A Google search is rather telling and turns up no reliable sources, just an IMDb profile and multiple other directory listings. PC78 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Crystal failing WP:NFF. However, bring it back when there is more than rumour. With the cast as offered, it will be worth seeing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong Keep per the improved article and the amount of coverage the film has been recieving since its conception. Excerpts have been screened, so it passes WP:Crystal and squeeks past WP:NFF, as WP:NFF states "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" (emphasis mine), The cast and crew and the involvement of NASA and JPL allow it to pass notability guidelines: "Never before have on going missions been involved in a film project, and never before has a film been initiated by NASA."[1] Per the guidelines, this one is a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NFF and has sources. Schuym1 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to post-nom improvements. Cliff smith ^talk 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current version. The references, though websites, are the usual ones for notability of sciencefiction &c, and have long been accepted here. Although an 2010 film, the production is well advanced & excerpts have been shown. DGG (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job on the rewrite. Gopher65_talk 04:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance to go through the article and look at the references used. I'll certainly agree that this is a nice rewrite, though it does appear to be padded with a bit of filler: what is the value of the Brent Spiner quote, and why do we need to have seperate "Plot" and "Synopsis" sections? Though many references are used, I found a great deal of them to contain only trivial mentions and/or found them to be rather dubious in terms of reliabilty, while some are certianly redundant to others used. That said, there are a few decent sources in there which are enough to satisfy (just!) my concerns regarding notabilty, and since what remains is a matter of cleanup, I shall therefore withdraw this nomination. PC78 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (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.