Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo!

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 moved to Draft:Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo!. This is a close call, but it is well argued that this presently falls short of the level of coverage needed to establish notability for a film, though notability is likely to develop in reasonably short order. BD2412 T 00:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo![edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NF. This was Deproded without explanation or approval, and this has already failed a Draft submission. The future film does not meet notability guidelines yet. It's only coverage before is an announcement that a trailer is available. The film's production is not particularly notable and thus the film should not have a stand-alone article. A sensible option would be to merge relevant information into a list article, but there is not enough for an article. BOVINEBOY2008 17:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF, doesn't seem to have gotten far enough into production to meet that hurdle yet. WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF also says In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced., which a trailer indicates all has already happened. Starzoner (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think this article fails WP:NF or that Bovineboy2008 fully understands the deletion policy. The film is set to be released. JTZegers (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state why you don't think this fails WP:NF. Also keep your ad hominem arguments at bay. BOVINEBOY2008 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I also agree that this doesn't fail WP:NE. A quick search turned up many sites announcing the film, which just happened. A trailer was released so the "plot" could potentially be added to the article, and once it is released there most assuredly will be reviews. This is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, but a case of WP:TOOSHORT. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-@Donaldd23: Yeah, I guess that's understandable. JTZegers (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I saw these sources too, @Donaldd23:, but if you open up and look at the sources they are all basically the same article. While this seems to meet the guideline of significant coverage, I don't know if an article that essentially says 'here's the trailer and some of the cast' constitutes. That's why I brought it here - for discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I'm the creator of the page). I think it is already notable. WP:NFF has said that an animated film can be created if it is already in production. A released trailer already indicates the animation is alreayd worked on, voice actors working on it, and likely music is worked on. If this was to be deleted, then the prior 34 films has to be as well. Starzoner (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we are interpreting WP:NFF the same way. When I read: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles...", I don't think that the converse is automatically true. Just because it meets this bar does not mean it meets WP:GNG. It would be nice to know why you have submitted this for publication after @Dan arndt: declined the submission, without any improvements, and why you deproded without any improvements after it was proded by @Robert McClenon:. And I think the discussion we are having here has little to do with the other the articles about Scooby-Doo films, please don't turn this into a slippery slope argument. BOVINEBOY2008 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guideline on future films states that films that have not been released should not have their own articles unless the production itself was notable, and refers to the guidelines for the Production section at the MOS on films. There is no Production section, presumably because the production was not notable. The guideline on future films is widely misinterpreted; the misinterpretation here is not unusual, but the guideline says when films should not have articles. It is commonly misread as saying that films should have articles when they have started or completed production. It says that films that are in the works should only have articles if the production was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:JTZegers - It appears that User:Bovineboy2008 does understand film notability, having read it well enough to parse what it does and does not say. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whether it goes one way or another, I would like it to be moved back to draft instead. Starzoner (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as all announcements of release are essentially the same piece of coverage. Although WP:TOOSOON for now, the current work can be stored in draft space in case reviews come later, and if not the content for merging is still readily available. Plus the author seems to now be requesting this regardless. –2pou (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft As said above ot might be too soon put it on darft and bulid it up to become a wikipieda page closer to it relase Fanoflionking 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Scooby is highly notable. Clockmaster68 (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sock. Malcalmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Striking LTA sock !vote[reply]

Keep per above. Malcalmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Striking LTA sock !vote[reply]
Draft It doesn't have the reviews yet to pass the notability standards for films. It seems the person who took it out of draft space did so prematurely and should have waited until it was released. No big, but back to draft space. Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I Don't think the reason is strong Enough to Consider Deleting this Page therefore i say Keep --Kreba4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Seems WP:TOOSOON right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (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.