Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games

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 Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games[edit]

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

This is article's subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines on films. The film hasn't been released yet, and all the information we have about this film comes from Walmart's description page, iTunes, and this. This is nowhere near the standard of significant coverage for notability. I wouldn't mind merging/redirecting content to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This subject has gone through AfD before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3. The result of the previous discussion was redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but I always thought if a movie is confirmed for release, then that is all that is needed for an article about it be kept.--BarrettM82 Contact 17:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a film exists doesn't mean it is notable. Likewise, just because a film is scheduled for release doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the page when the movie is being released next month and the rest of the information can be included on the page then? There's no reason not to - the page is incomplete because the movie isn't out but the movie is being released in 30 days - LITERALLY! Ktanaqui (Contact) — Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: there is no indication that there will be significant documentation of the movie in reliable sources even when it does come out. We aren't here to speculate about future events. There is no significant coverage of the film right now, just 30 days before the release date. Why should we assume there will be significant coverage to prove notability when it does come out? As an alternative to deletion, I'm okay with redirecting the article to the first Alpha and Omega article's relevant "Sequels" section, or sending it to Wikipedia:Drafts. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels, per WP: CRYSTAL. Strictly speaking it should probably be deleted, but with the film's release a near certainty at this point, I think it's a good idea to preserve the article history so it can be restored in the unlikely event that the film does achieve WP: NOTABILITY.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:06, 1 March 2014 (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.