Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumas (film)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pumas (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The prod was contested. Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pumas (film) is a 2011 project only now in development. This artilce is waaaay too premature. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - all we've got is the lead and a one-line plot summary, no significant coverage elsewhere. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me. Already getting coverage in reliable sources. Premature to delete it anmd it's already received substantial coverage in reliable sources including Variety . ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks an awful lot like a brief news article, which is hardly "significant coverage". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are whole articles about the movie in major publications. That doesn't seem trivial to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Changed my opinion and have struck my 'delete' above. The anonymous IP's response to User:ChildofMidnight got me looking. It seems the film is indeed getting enough coverage to perhaps just sneak in as one of those rare but accepted exceptions to NFF. Seattle Times (official blog of their film critic), The National, National Ledger. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources aren't terribly trivial, but they are not particularly substantial either.  I do not think that they are sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of deletion that attends films in this stage of (pre)-production.  If it starts filming as anticipated than it will likely garner more coverage and be appropriately recreated.  Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a tremendous amount of coverage, but should be enough to warrant retention of the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:15, 28 August 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.