Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faraways

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. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faraways[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion by User:Reddogsixwith the following reason:

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. The talk page has indicated the article is about a trilogy and not about a single film and therefore the WP:NOTFILM may not apply. If that is the case, then what does apply is the trilogy has no independent, verifiable, secondary resources to support this article.

This has been challenged by User:Tertulius in a message sent to me (and multiple other administrators). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete article, Userfy back to User:Tertulius with the instruction that mere "existance" is not enough... finished or not, released or not, what can allow any film topic to merit an article is coverage in independent reliable sources. ONCE this has the requisite coverage, an article can be returned. Being unreleased and not having coverage in reliable sources means this film trilogy, no matter how wonderful he may feel it is, does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2013 (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.