Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King


 * 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   Delete. I note a number of Keep opinions that contradict policy / deletion protcol - Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not a policy page, but contains much useful advice. We do have some precedent that major releases announced by movie studios or, for that matter, record labels, can be regarded as de facto and overcoming WP:CRYSTAL, but this article presents no RS recording such an announcement. Anyone finding RS (not a single mention on Amazon) for the launch can let me know and I'll recreate the article for them to add the RS to, and I'll !vote Keep if there's a subsequent second AfD. Dweller (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King

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

No notability or significant coverage established, or likely to be (without breaching WP:CRYSTAL territory, anyway). PROD was rejected on claim that "All films, whether theatrical or otherwise, have wikipedia articles." The very existence of inclusion criteria for films, as well as more obvious factors, rather strongly dispute this assertion. Vianello (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, even if I'm not sure if it fulfills WP:MOVIE yet. What should be considered though is to merge all twelve direct-to-dvd movies into one article. --Amalthea (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. I don't think such a merge would be uncalled for. - Vianello (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. I've looked at several of these articles, and it's all just plot summary with no sources and very little (if any) real world information. If notability cannot be established for these film individually, then I think a single merged article for the film series would be the way to go. PC78 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF, specifically "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". No reliable third party sources appear to exist that might indicate notability; the only google hits appear to be commericial websites (such as Amazon) or forums. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep about to be released, notable series. JJL (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep when it is released, it will have the same information as the other films. And there is no reason to merge, all the films are separate, they are just about the same subject matter. Rhino131 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've no objection to the proposed merge other than losing the not free media. But looks notable.  Hobit (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The film exists - it will be available shortly, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a Scooby Doo fan in my junior years, I guess I have a conflict of interest here. But the film will be coming out soon so its not quite a crystal ball issue and the Scooby Doo franchise is inherently notable to young Wikipedia editors. This search reveals 856 hits alone for this film. Artene50 (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. Something being posted for sale on a site like Amazon.com is a bit of a feeble argument for notability. I think the number cited is quite deceptively high. Not nearly as many of the hits generated are sincere external "coverage" rather than pre-order pages, or redundant extra links to the same site/page. And the majority of those few that aren't just DVD sale pages that are nearly blank placeholder pages. I think an assertion of meeting WP:MOVIE criteria would be more called for. Has no more than one site given actual coverage to this film? If not, the assertion it is notable by any WP:MOVIE standard is speculation. - Vianello (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete until meaningful content exists. "It will take place on Halloween and appears to be loosely based of the classic A Pup Named Scooby-Doo episode Ghost Who's Coming To Dinnner. The film will most likely be dedicated to Joseph Barbera, who died during production of the previous film, Chill Out, Scooby-Doo! " - People are seriously voting to keep this? No meaningful content could possibly exist right now.  JohnnyMrNinja  14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Officially announced films, especially ones as part of a major franchise, are notable. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Additional coverage will probably be available within the next month as reviews are printed, etc. 23skidoo (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Seriously, I have no particular interest in the fate of this article one way or another, but I'm really struggling with the mass of "Keep votes" above. "Looks notable"? "The film exists"? "Additional coverage will probably be available"? Are these really the best arguments to be made for retaining the article? Of course the franchise is notable, but on the other hand, notability is not inherited. Also, the belief that all officially announced films are inherantly notable is contrary to the basic principles of WP:N. Sorry, and I'm certainly not looking to pick a fight here, but I can't agree with the opinion that Anything Scooby Doo = Notable. With the utmost respect. PC78 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the url since it doesn't specifically mention Joseph Barbera. But seriously, are you going to delete this upcoming episode of Scooby Doo which has 856 hits on Google. This isn't really crystal ball territory. A bit of leeway and common sense is required. Artene50 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. See my previous comment on a similar argument. How many of those 'hits' are actually of any relevance or consequence? I'm not sure how this doesn't involve the crystal ball issue, since its notability is purely a future assumption. - Vianello (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, zero Google News, Books or Scholar hits, and ""Scooby-Doo and the Goblin King" -wikipedia -blog -forum" gets 181 Google hits even when the omitted results are included. Wikipedia is not Amazon anyway. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (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.