Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smurfs (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Smurfs (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. Easily meets general notability guidelines, rendering NFF moot. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... I could easily go on. Powers T 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the first diff is nearly 4 years old and has a completely different cast, I think this is a textbook example of why we DO have the NFF guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first diff didn't have any reliable sources. If you're suggesting that NFF should override the General Notability Guideline, you're going to have to make that case first. Powers T 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't seem to remember suggesting that. That being said, there's no consensus that either guideline "outranks" the other - they are both guidelines, and thus neither has precedence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If neither has precedence, then an article need only meet one or the other, right? Powers T 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't seem to remember suggesting that. That being said, there's no consensus that either guideline "outranks" the other - they are both guidelines, and thus neither has precedence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first diff didn't have any reliable sources. If you're suggesting that NFF should override the General Notability Guideline, you're going to have to make that case first. Powers T 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the first diff is nearly 4 years old and has a completely different cast, I think this is a textbook example of why we DO have the NFF guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss possible merge. With respects to the nominator. WP:NF of which WP:NFF is a sub-criteria, states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Certainly, there are not many acceptable exceptions to WP:NFF, but when a subject has the coverage as does this subject, it is time perhaps to use best judgement to decide that the topic should have an article in some form, even if merged into one of the many Smurfs articles. The production began in 2003, is part of a very notable franchise, has received continuous coverage for those 6 years, and a blanket deletion does not best serve the project. And for a merge, the article must be kept first and such merge discussed on the article's talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep sources found by Powers confer notability. Most future films are non-notable, but that doesn't mean all are non-notable and this one passes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (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.