Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Chase


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wolfe Chase

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Fails WP:NOTFILM.  ttonyb (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It clearly fails notability criteria for films. Why isn't there a CSD for this?. Or does A7 qualifies?. --Legion fi (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – it probably falls under WP:SNOW.  ttonyb (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree, but sometimes admins and other editors tend to be over zealous about the application of the criteria. If I was to tag the article for a SD, I would most likely receive a swiftly post in my talk page in the order of "Doesn't meet the CSD. Prod it or take it to an AFD". Even unexperienced or insecure admins may decline the SD request if it is not specifically in the CSD. I could pledge the fifth... err I mean the WP:SNOW, but then I could get into a discussion about it not even been a guideline and other things like WP:IAR. I guess that is why I would wish WP:SNOW could get into the CSD. So many pages, like this one, wouldn't need the bureaucratic process of an AFD. --Legion fi (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. As the film exists, and the article itself is then not a hoax or vandalism, we do not "speedy" it simply for being non-notable.  Indeed, a film written and directed by a 14-year-old, "might" have gotten the attention of the press or media... but this one did not, and so it fails WP:NF. Failing NF is not and should not be a CSD criteria, but rather simply a reason to be more diligent in our searches. An AFD and its discussion is the way to deal with such.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:58, 27 April 2011 (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.