Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Fu Magoo


 * 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. WP:CRYSTAL issue or !vote has been countered and does not apply. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kung Fu Magoo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable film. Despite the notability of its cast and its subject matter, no reliable results can be found for the existence of this film. Several rumors seem to have floated around the internet regarding its existence, but even the IMDB entry seems hinky, with an "official site" that links to an anonymous IP address rather than a named domain. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NF, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Google shows no apparent signs of notability: . — Rankiri (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete, fails WP:NF and also WP:NOTCRYSTAL as above. RawrMage (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements showing confirmation in reliable sources that the film s in post production and preparing for its 2010 release. In regards WP:CRYSTAL, I note "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. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Considering cast, coverage can reasonably be presumed to increase, not diminish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The newfound sources seem sufficient. Well done. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn Per improvements by . Kudos to him for finding sources that I could not.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clicking on Google news search up top, I see 20 results. They mention the series, so it must be notable, they not talking about it otherwise at all.   D r e a m Focus  18:35, 22 January 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.