Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred: The 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   redirect to Fred Figglehorn. The sourcing isn't quite there yet but its close. the NYT is one but we need more then one really decent source and arguably this belongs with the main article until the coverage is more substantial, So I'm closing this as a redirect with a specific caveat that this can be undone as and when the sourcing improves without need to refer to me or have any further discussion. Note that I advise against merging as once the article becomes standalone again unmerging it and fixing the atrributation would be a real pain compared to just rolling back the redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fred: The Movie

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Delete. This character is insanely annoying, but that is besides the point. The film has yet to be released and has achieved zero notability yet. JBsupreme (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Merge with his main article. Its something that should be mentioned there. I can't find anything about his film. He met with Hollywood people to promote a different film but I can't find anything else.  D r e a m Focus  21:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete. The film doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Armbrust (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC) The New York Times article is a reliable source, which indicates notability. Armbrust (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NOTFILM. Sock of  Lord Spongefrog   (Talk to m'Lord)  17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fred Figglehorn and/or to List of Fred episodes. EALacey (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Fred Figglehorn for now. If and when the film meets WP:GNG allow recreation as a seperate article. COI note: I worked with Lucas... as Santa Claus on his Christmas Cash video. Turned out to be a nice youngster and not at all like the annoying "Fred" character, whose popularity baffles me. That aside, I feel that significant coverage is in the offing and believe my merge opinion is neutral and supported by guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP Merge and redirect  without prejudice to future creation of article if greater notability is achieved. The fact that this movie is being made has gotten some press, but not a lot yet .  It had gotten more press than I realized, thanks to MQS for noting that. Adult universally dislike Fred, but kids worship him.--Milowent (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Changed - --Milowent (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't find anything about this film why would we merge/redirect? I do see some casual blog fodder, but nothing substantial, otherwise I would have just instituted the redirect myself and bypassed this entire deletion debate.  JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you would. I have read coverage of the movie on tubefilter and gawker (so its above "zero notability"), but it sounded like it is in the early stages (casting).--Milowent (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To JBSupreme: What is always interesting is that for recent topics, coverage sometimes becomes available after the article is nominated... in this instance the recently found New York Times, New York Magazine and Variety articles. Such would seem indicative of a merge and redirect being reasonable... and might almost require a re-consideration of it meeting WP:GNG and a thought toward a "keep and expand". Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa a full article in the ny times is a significant development.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I might even think that the article might be deserving of incubation, with thoughts for a return to main pages as information comes forward and sufficient notability becomes sourcable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep To JBSupreme: Obviously if a movie is going to be made for a series, that would be something you'd have mentioned on the article of that series. Anyway, it now has news coverage, the New York Times article proving it notable, so forget the merge, just Keep it here.   D r e a m Focus  16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fred Figglehorn as it fails WP:NFF and WP:N. At this time it does not meet any notability guidelines. A smattering of articles on Figglehorn's possible film does not make it notable, and its non-existence leads to no content to speak of beyond "he says he's doing it". Merge and then if/when its actually produced and released and more than the story of the week, create the article. Wikipedia doesn't operate on the idea of forecasting future notability. -- Collectonian  (talk ·' contribs) 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it got news coverage, then its notable. Isn't that how the notability guidelines work?  The New York Times article is about the film, and nothing else.    D r e a m Focus  17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. While I have no problem with a temporary merge & redirect, its to be rememberered that the policy WP:CRYSTAL was set in place only to prevent unverifiable speculation: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"... And per WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  And so... as this article meets applicable policy and guidelines for its notability, I suggest that either the article be now improved to show the numerous current sources in its meeting GNG, or that there be no prejudice toward its recreation in a few weeks or months.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the NY times source.  fetch  comms  ☛ 23:01, 12 December 2009 (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.