Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight of the Butterflies


 * 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 incubate. The article can now be found at Article Incubator/Flight of the Butterflies. We can move it back to the mainspace after suitable sources are available. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Flight of the Butterflies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found no reliable sources covering this October film in any sort of detail. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are a fair number of websites, , , . I think it is OK to keep. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first is unreliable, the second one is a press release, the third source is from the company, and the fourth one lists a showing of it. From the third source's About page - "The site allows individuals, organizations, guilds, unions and companies working in stereoscopic and computer-generated 3D to publish their details in an online, searchable database, which can then be viewed by anyone searching for Ontario-based 3D expertise or services." SL93 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right SL93, but the film is not released yet. I think it's very likely to gather some 3rd party interest after release. I know this is not a "recommended argument", but why delete something only to have to recreate it again? JoshuSasori (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, an early version of the film already screened at the Maryland Science Center on March 31, 2012. and with release on the full 3D IMAX version due to take place in less than 4 weeks, we DO have suitable options other than outright deletion. AFD is not for stating "keep" or "delete", but for discussion of how and when to apply whatever alternative that best improves the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/potential redirect to Fred Urquhart. There's some notability issues with the scientist's article, but this could best serve as a potential redirect to him. So far this is a very, very newly released IMAX film that has received little coverage in any reliable and independent sources. I've found mentions on sites that wouldn't be considered independent and/or reliable as well as several mentions of showings and a few press releases, but not nearly enough to give this film notability. This is very new so it's possible that it could one day become notable but this just isn't there yet. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy a copy of the article to work on.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep... or Incubate for two weeks. In following up on User:Tokyogirl79's work, I have begun addressing other issues with the nominated article. Firstly, the film is not "by" Dr. Fred Urquhart, as her version stated, as he died ten years ago, but is rather an National Science Foundation funded film that covers Urquhart's 40-year investigation, directed and co-written by Mike Slee with actor Gordon Pinsent in the role of the older Urquhart. Secondly, principle filming completed last March and the film is due to premiere in less than 3 weeks. As new sources are popping up almost hourly, there is no need to give this imminent release the bum's rush.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to neutral/keep/incubate. I don't see a problem with incubating it for a while since more sources are popping up. I'm a little leery about using routine notifications of film showings as trivial sources, though.09:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs)
 * Your misgivings are understood. The notifications listied at the moment are simply to re-assure those that feel NFF is failed that the thing WILL have its IMAX premires quite soon... not years down the road... and only offered temporarily. The edit summary when these were added to the article specifically explains that Wikipedia notability is by no means dependent on the confirmations that it going to debut soon.  I have this one on watch and whether "kept" or "incubated",  will address that concern after the thing receives the expected significant coverage, commentary and review. I anticipate that this will nicely meet WP:NF within mere weeks, and we can then have a decent reception section.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:46, 13 September 2012 (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.