Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure


 * 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. v/r - TP 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Colby's Incredible Adventure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unlikely to meet GNG. Most references are to IMDB entries. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 09:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re-release title:
 * Comment: While current state is a concern often addressable through tagging for cleanup and through regular editing, I would think it better to have tagged this pre-internet film for cleanup, rather than nominate for deletion with the opinion "Unlikely to meet GNG". As verifiability of the topic is not an issue, why not give it a little time and then see it it has been fixed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Various additional release titles:
 * Comment: Well... it was not too difficult through regular editing to remove the improper IMDB sourcing, perform cleanup for style and tone, and then expand and cite the thing "somewhat" better, to turn the problematic article as first nominated into a more encyclopedic piece, but this particular Roger Corman project might be better merged and redirected to one of the Corman-related articles as an example of how Corman often recycled his earlier works. I'm open to suggestions as to which target would be best.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be fairly developed and has plenty of references. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. That was me. I preferred doing some improvement through regular editing before coming to AFD and saying "issues were addressable".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well... it was not too difficult through regular editing to remove the improper IMDB sourcing, perform cleanup for style and tone, and then expand and cite the thing "somewhat" better, to turn the problematic article as first nominated into a more encyclopedic piece, but this particular Roger Corman project might be better merged and redirected to one of the Corman-related articles as an example of how Corman often recycled his earlier works. I'm open to suggestions as to which target would be best.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be fairly developed and has plenty of references. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. That was me. I preferred doing some improvement through regular editing before coming to AFD and saying "issues were addressable".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The sourcing looks like enough to me to support an independent article but I would not be averse to a merge if that is thought to be a better way to organize the (fairly small) information.  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2011 (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.