Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sky Raiders


 * 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. There's clearly no consensus to delete. Early in the discussion, things were trending towards draftify but after some improvements were made to the articles, sentiment was clearly to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The Sky Raiders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of multiple stubs on movies, none of which contain enough information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also The California Trail. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also The Westerner (1934 film).
 * Also One Way Ticket (1935 film). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Fifty Fathoms Deep (1931 film)
 * Also The Quitter (1929 film) Robert McClenon (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   20:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Move all to Draft namespace – Source searches I have performed for these historic films are demonstrating notability. In their current states, these articles are better in Draft namespace for the time being, where they can improved. North America1000 22:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify is fine with the nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify Keep User:Ryathoma is a new editor and has been creating a lot of stubs, some of which have been incorrectly tagged as WP:A1 when it is quite clear even from one sentence what the context is – old Columbia Pictures movies. They are probably notable as releases from a major Hollywood studio and should be moved to draftspace and worked on there, not deleted. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep as they now appear to be valid stubs.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if the bulk creator won't give a reference to where they discovered the names and years, it's a waste of everyone's time to keep this as a draft. If they can provide a reference, I support keeping them as articles in main space, even if there's only 1 sentence of text and 1 reference. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The data can be verified at the TCM database.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's a reliable source (unilke IMDB), I support keeping the article in form. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Draftify The film exists and notable but in it's current format article doesn't even satisfy stub. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Several of this editor's earlier stubs were moved to Draft and then deleted as "Obvious hoax" - despite being findable on TCM database and imdb (see Draft:Speed Mad and Draft:Man Against Woman). Will these new articles, if draftified, disappear similarly? Pam  D  07:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. That's what I've been doing with these, and I think it's the least bad of the available options (deletion as "hoax" was surely a mistake). The editor shows no sign of willingness to communicate (zero talk-space edits), so it's possible there's an insuperable language problem here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Fifty Fathoms Deep (1931 film) as I've added a WP:RS, formatted etc, and used it as an example to discuss at User_talk:Ryathoma. Pam  D  07:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep All: Thanks to the energetic help of the Wikipedia community every article is sourced now with external links to IMDb / TCM / AFI (which should be reliable enough) and has categories added. -- MovieFex (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: So long as these articles can be properly referenced, I see no need for deletion. All seem to be notable films. ExRat (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all as stubs. There are many books on westerns and the history of Hollywood likely to provide some information, as well as contemporary sources. The articles are now valid stubs, now offering useful information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all as they are being improved and no longer require WP:TNT Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a plot summary using some minor sources, and the movie poster. This was a film released by a mainstream studio. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per MovieFex. 00:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs) 23 August 2017 (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.