Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flammable Children

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flammable Children[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted it fails WP:NOTPLOT as it consists only of summary of the plot of a movie and WP:CRYSTAL as it is about an unreleased movie. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 16:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but overhaul. While the article is not of good quality, we need to judge if a topic is notable by sources in the world (not just in the Wikipedia article). Multiple sources have written about this film, which already began production. (We would generally avoid articles about films that have not yet started production since before then, they are more likely to be canceled.) This is reflected in WP:NFF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF, film is in post-production, a citation etc. has been added. — Sam Sailor 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is kept, it should be moved to Flammable Children. No need for disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Erik, there's no article at the base name Flammable Children. — Sam Sailor 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok, the film is not released yet and won't be for a while. Nevertheless, it's created quite a stir in media [1][2][3]. I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest easy pass of WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF and because it meets WP:GNG. Just because it hasn't been released doesn't mean the article isn't useful to readers. Laurdecl ^talk 01:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article does meet the notability criteria for WP:NFF and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs considerable work, but films that are not yet released don't automatically meet the criteria for deletion just because of WP:CRYSTAL. The article still passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG and should therefore be kept. –Matthew - (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.