Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comanche stallion


 * 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.  Syn  ergy 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comanche stallion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unmade movie, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. imdb doesn't even have an article. I question WP:N. D ARTH P ANDA duel 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Neutral. Still leaning delete, but vote withdrawn due to Michael's heavy work on the article.  D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Keep. After further review, the ridiculous amount of sources point to its notability. Thanks for your hard work, MichaelQSchmidt!  D ARTH P ANDA duel 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I understand WP:CRYSTAL to address predictions of the future. The article claims to be about an intention in the past, by someone now deceased; is WP:NECROMANCY a more appropriate guide in this case? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference: See http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-0EJA/comanche-stallion/ -- The site claims the movie was made in 2006, so divination policies don't apply after all. (I am not commenting on notability, or lack thereof.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If it can be further sourced. IMDB is not the final word on films... only a tool.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, and in agreemenet with Perfect Onion, it is not crystal... ... just needs something a lot better than blurbs.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE I just cleaned up the article.... expanded, sourced, wikified, etc. Its better, but not perfect. Need an expert on John Ford.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that the page passes WP:V, my concern becomes WP:N. Does this pass WP:NF, and if so, how? D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Would normally go delete, but editor has worked hard on this, the page will be useful in the future, and there is no need to delete useful work just to rewrite it in a year. - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  02:26, 10 November 2008 (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.