Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores


 * 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 no consensus. The debate has already been relisted twice and the votes are fairly even, I doubt we're going to reach a consensus here. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Monster High: Escape from Skull Shores

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete Yet another unnecessary article about a Monster High subject. None of the TV specials are notable and I'm pretty sure a lot of them were created by the same user. Total fancruft.&#42;Treker (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no encyclopedic value in what is essentially just a plot summary. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve: Let this page stay. It was created to store the information about the TV specials like the the others that were listed. If kept, I also ask that the page be improved to Wikipedia standards. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - I don't think I understand your argument. Aren't all articles created to store (or convey, rather) information? You should be establishing that the subject has standalone notability, i.e. that the special itself meets the general notability guideline or some more specific criteria. Surely you've read the GNG by now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - No stand-alone notability was established by Rtkat3 when he created the article, nor by anyone else who has contributed to the article since. Not sure if I can think of a logical place to merge this. Monster High (web series) for lack of any better place? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Monster High (web series). That seems to serve the same purpose in a much more succinct manner. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)




 * Reluctant Keep Sorry to disagree and the thing does need a lot of work, but as unhappy as I am to state this, sourcing for improvement does exist to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF: Cinemagazine (Dutch), DVD Verdict, Common Sense Media, High-Def Digest (1), Variety, Blu-ray.com (1) "Broadway World", High-Def Digest (2), TVQC (1) (French), "Reporter-Times" TVQC (2) (French), Deseret News, Blu-ray.com (2), and some others. Won't be me to fix it, but perhaps the can be prevailed upon to do so to meet MOS:FILM?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would require some collaborations to find good sources and improve the plot. I already handled the cast and external links. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I found and offered sources above, which is why I opined a keep. The current plot section is far too long, it needs a sourced reception section, and needs to be cited. Read MOS:FILM and look at other film articles to gain clue.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as reliable sources detailed by Michael QSchmidt have been presented and the article can be improved through those sources, so that WP:GNG is pased. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is mentioned in reliable sources, but is the coverage of any substance...ie does it do more than simply establish that this sorry lump of dreck exists??TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I offered above... in English, French, and Dutch. I have added some sources to the article and while I still have no love for this film topic, notability standards are met. Plot is still way too long, but notability is shown. And note: while WP:SIGCOV is the accepted guideline and most of those I offered (and used) are substantive, the requested WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not part of guideline of policy. Just sayin'  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the coverage found above, the subject has got significant coverage in reliable sources, meets WP:GNG— UY Scuti Talk  10:08, 13 April 2016 (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.