Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zeland Film Archive 2009 Recovery


 * 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   merge to New Zealand Film Archive.  Sandstein  07:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

New Zeland Film Archive 2009 Recovery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of context and sources RichardMills65 (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well... lack of context and sources aren't exactly reasons to delete an article. The film recovery is notable, but I'm not sure that it is notable outside of the New Zealand Film Archive. I am finding sources about the recovery, but I can't help but wonder if it's something that would be better if it was fleshed out on the archive's page. The only thing I do know is that the article we're discussing now misspelled "Zealand".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to New Zealand Film Archive. Definitely worthwhile material, but it fits neatly within the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm leaning towards "merge" as well. There's a ton of articles out there about the film discovery, but most of it centers around the time of said uncovering of film and it could be considered WP:ONEEVENT. I do recommend that if it is merged, the article history is left intact so we can revamp it later if/when other articles or books are written about the recovery in the future. I'm fleshing out the article just in case this happens in the future (or to see if there's enough to warrant an article keep).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/redirect and merge. I tried to find enough sources to show that the discovery warrants an article of its own, but in the end I have to suggest that this be a redirect to the Film Archive site. I am thinking that a redirect to the site would be best, but I'm not entirely happy with the title of the article. Is it possible to rename it something along the lines of "2009 Silent Film Archive discovery" or something to that nature? I would like to try to keep the article history if possible (if not, I can userfy a copy of the data), as this is something that could potentially be mentioned in future books or articles down the line.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main New Zealand article. This is a very important discovery, but I'm not sure if it warrants its own article. Happy for it to be kept if there's some expansion work done, though.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 March 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.