Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigational Cinema

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 redirect to Return to House on Haunted Hill. NAC. Cliff Smith 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational Cinema

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

It appears to have made a splash when it was announced and used in Return to House on Haunted Hill. See [1] as an example of coverage. However, beyond that one blip, I have seen no coverage since. I don't see the enduring coverage to establish notability, and in fact, I cannot even find another film that uses Navigational Cinema. Whpq (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Return to House on Haunted Hill#Production where this process is already mentioned and sourced. Being a one-of for the last 5 years does not give notability enough for a separate article, but as a production process sourcable as being used in the aforementioned film, we can at least send readers to the one place where it is reasonable that it be spoken of in context to the film in which it was used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many years must a stub remain a stub / Before we conclude that it's not going anywhere? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as it takes. We have lots of notable stubs that simply await attention, and sometimes it does take a while. Personally, I do not go seeking them out, and only improve those with potential that get sent to AFD due to impatience (See WP:DEADLINE, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT)... and I have over 50 DYKs resulting from expansion of stubby articles. However, this should have been boldly redirected and sent to AFD only if such was contested. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn - Jiminey Crickets! How did this one drop off my watchlist? I agree with MQS's recommendation of a redirect and am withdrawing the nomination. My apologies for not spotting this earlier and causing the AFD to get relisted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2012 (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.