Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tully (1974 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 delete. ✗ plicit  12:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Tully (1974 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD'd with rationale: Insufficient SIGCOV to meet WP:NFILM. No significant contemporary reviews or retrospective critical coverage located on a search. Book source cited is on IA here, and the listing is a bare-bones database-like cast list with a single-sentence synopsis.

De-PROD'd with edit summary: deprod; needs to go to AfD

But of course no reason is given as to why it "needs" to go to AfD, and of course no sourcing is added. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television,  and Australia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. As usual, my objection is to overuse of prodding. WP:PROD lays out what prodding is for very clearly: Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It is certainly not intended to circumvent AfD. Please only prod articles that no editor with any knowledge of procedure would consider to be notable. Anything else should go to AfD for full discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would assume that any editor with any knowledge of policy would consider a film with zero reviews to be non-notable and therefore that the deletion would be uncontroversial. If you have an opposition to proposed deletion, I suggest you go to WT:PROD and seek consensus to either deprecate the process or enshrine your skewed interpretation into policy. De-PRODing because you oppose the process in general is wasting other editors' time to make a point. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not object in any way to prodding. I object to its misuse. And I was not making a WP:POINT; I deprodded an article that I believed needed to be taken to AfD. Most prodded articles are correctly prodded. But prodding is for completely non-notable topics. A prod can also be removed by any editor for any reason or none, as you should know. Anyone who gets arsey if a prod is removed or objects to taking an article to AfD is going against the spirit of Wikipedia and the letter of WP:PROD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. Perfectly reasonable PROD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete not finding anything useful on search. Perfectly reasonable Prod AND perfectly reasonable contest of prod if you ask me. Artw (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2022 (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.