Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue's Big Musical Movie


 * 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The result was Speedy close - Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. Thanks to Michael Q. Schmidt for sourcing the article. (Non-admin closure) Snotty Wong   confer 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue's Big Musical Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Plot-only description of a non-notable direct-to-video movie. No significant, independent coverage in reliable sources of this movie to satisfy WP:GNG. Snotty Wong  verbalize 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Yeah, bad article.  But notable franchise.  I don't see how this is any less notable than the tons of other direct-to-video articles on wikipedia. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe it's notable, produce sources which satisfy WP:GNG. Snotty Wong   babble 06:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The provided finsources offers reviews and articles that show significant coverage which allows editors (other than yourself) a reasonable presumption toward notability and does not demand that they personally produce the found sources simply because you demand it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep needs cleanup. standalone movie of notable franchise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, without showing significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, this vote is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Snotty Wong   confess 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Error. WP:SIGCOV is not the only criteria upon which notability per WP:NF may be considered, and as we're not speaking toward notability being based upon being the son of a lost duke, editors can indeed consider through a policy mandated verifiability that is is part of a notable series.  Essays aside, for the betterment of the project, a current lack of sources appear to be a correctable issue, and even at the worst would indicate consideration of a redirect and/or merge rather than an outright deletion in their lack.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a part of a notable series doesn't establish notability sufficient to justify a separate article. Notability is not inherited.  If WP:GNG is not satisfied for this particular film, then I agree it should be merged and redirected (which is a form of deletion) back to the article on the series.  Snotty Wong   converse 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it were an episode, but it's a standalone movie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? Either there are sources which pass WP:GNG, or there aren't.  It doesn't matter if it's an episode, a movie, a book, an album, a song, a turnip, or a spork.  Snotty Wong   confabulate 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious relevance is that by its being a part of a notable series guideline allows a reasonable presumption that sources toward notability exist. And though you could easily have corrected the issues yourself, it has instead been done by others. The article now bears little resemblance to the one first nominated.  Significant reliable sources have been used to cite the now properly encyclopdic result.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep... and in consideration of the NOW improved article I suggest the nominator think about a withdrawal as his concerns have been addressed. With only the most cursory of research it is found that numerous reliable sources have discussed this film directly and in detail.  And now what was so emminently fixable has been fixed.  What was perhaps understandably sent to AFD originally as nothing but an unsourced and bloated plotline, has now with a little work been made into a properly encyclopedic article... cleaned up, wikified, and now well and propely sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 30 December 2010 (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.