Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Voyage (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Magic Voyage
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notwithstanding the conclusion of the first nomination, this film does not satisfy WP:NF.

There has never been a claim that this film meets the main criteria there.

The out-of-context justification for the previous "keep" decision at the original AfD was a selective interpretation of "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

While a number of notable people were associated with this project, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that it constituted a "major part of" any of their careers. Bongo matic  06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The voyage is over - per nom. // roux   14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure how the film fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. "Abenteuer von Pico und Columbus" was a direct-to-video film that was redubbed in the United States by Hemdale for re-release, and it's clearly notable .  It doesn't matter whether it got awards or not.  I'm sure the latest Barbie DVD won't be an Oscar winner, but that won't make it any less notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reviews, no article. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a review to the article: Kinderfilm-online (German) - (English translation)   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep on the grounds that, whether the nominator agrees with the outcome or not, this article passed AFD with a keep decision less than a month ago, and articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time in this fashion as it undermines the AFD process. I believe there are other processes, including I think deletion review, that can be followed if you disagree with an AFD decision. Or else, simply wait 6 months to see if the article is improved and then renominate. 23skidoo (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. 1.) The keep-!votes are still as correct as they were a month ago and 2.) renominating an article because you don't like the previous outcome, i.e. renominating until it gets deleted, is, as 23skidoo points out, undermining the very foundation of having a discussion about whether to delete an article. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV but not here again. Regards  So Why  19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep' consensus does not usually change this fast--though it would help to have something more in the way of references. DGG (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment in response to 23skidoo, SoWhy, and DGG. It is clear by the fact that there was (a) a new nomination; and (b) two editors already in one day who agree with the "delete" recommendation that the "consensus" reached by the previous AfD disucssion was not a fully considered one. The nomination in that case did not actually address the notability guidelines, and neither the nominator nor anyone else pointed out the inapplicability of the lone reason given for the article to be kept. DRV doesn't seem applicable because the closing editor was not negligent in closing the debate--the problem was mainly of the original nomination.
 * Looking at the debate a month ago, the closing admin said nothing more than "The result was keep." The admin didn't say that there was a problem with the original nomination.  Within those four words, the admin did not say anything that suggests "a selective interpretation of" some policy.  Looking at the debate right now, I don't see that any editor has said that they agree that "the 'consensus' reached by the previous AfD disucssion was not a fully considered one".  Thus, I don't agree that the debate a month ago was closed on a flaw in the nomination process. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say that there is a problem with the original nomination I did not mean a procedural one. Rather, the nomination failed to give detailed reasons that the article's subject does not qualify for inclusion in WP. Thus (through no fault of the closing editor), the comments on the previous AfD page were not terribly informed (and the comment that drew the wong conclusion from the alternative grounds for inclusion was not challenged). So "consensus" was reached without the context necessary to come to a (in my view correct) "delete" result. Procedure alone doesn't determine outcome--substance matters too. Bongo  matic  01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:DRV clearly states that deletion review is also to be used for cases when new information warrants a different outcome. If you think that the closing admin made a mistake because the !votes were incorrect within policy, DRV is the way to go. Your argument is that your !vote was the only correct one, because it was within policy. This means that the closing admin, if you are correct, made a mistake in judging the outcome. But you not even tried (as far as I can see) to talk to the closing admin nor did you try DRV. Re-nominating for deletion because you disagree with the outcome shortly after the last discussion is specifically discouraged by the deletion policy. Regards  So  Why  09:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no reviews of the film, nor are there any notable sources provided. Furthermore, there is no evidence provided in the article that the film was widely distributed. There is now good sourcing; seems to have been distributed by Image Entertainment. I think there's enough there now to keep it. SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons mentioned above. Some users should focus on actually improving articles or fighting vandalism/POV instead of trying to get articles deleted through repeated nominations. Laurent paris (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep... Again... just as I opined 4 weeks ago. Improvement was easy per WP:ATD. SO have just finished expanding and sourcing the article. Am actually a bit impressed by the voice cast of the English version. And the fact that it survived an AfD just 4 weeks agor does not take away the fact that cast is award winning. The nom, in ignoring last month's AfD, is perhaps counting on the difficulty in finding reviews for a 16-year-old children's direct-to-dvd animated film. Luckily, just as was pointed out last month, WP:FILM allows us to consider the significant involvement of award-winning cast in context with the making of this film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources are in the article that show notability. WP:NF says that notable cast only makes a movie notable if it's a major role and a major part of their career. There are no sources that shows that it is. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 09:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to keep: per the review that Schmidt found. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep C'mon, we just went through this a month ago. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep "sour grapes" is not a valid deletion reason. Artw (talk) 00:29, 9 December 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.