Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playing the Moldovans at Tennis


 * 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 Tony Hawks. No merge needed because all relevant info is already in the target article. Cerebellum (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Playing the Moldovans at Tennis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After several years, the article still has no sources and no external links. There's no information synthesis here that wouldn't be obtained from the IMDb page; just a list of the plot and cast/crew members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irregulargalaxies (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep While the article could do with some work, I don't see how the proposer's argument demonstrates that the film does not warrant a Wikipedia article. It seems sufficiently notable to do so. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The book is certainly notable, more so than the film, so this would better be refactored as an article about the book with the film being covered as an adaptation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Tony Hawks - I don't think the film is notable (it had a very limited distribution), but there seem to be plenty of references to the book about (and I have read it myself). However, the book is summarised adequately in the Tony Hawks article. It isn't one of those cases where the movie is more notable than the source book, the book is definitely more notable than the movie.. and if the book doesn't merit an entry than it's hard to see a justification for this one. Any usable material could be merged into Tony Hawks. Shritwod (talk) 09:49, 23 November 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.