Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ridley Scott's unrealised projects

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley Scott's unrealised projects[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)

Unnecessary WP:CFORK from Ridley Scott, which does not meet WP:NLIST; would not be a helpful redirect to main biography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, it would not be out of place in Scott's biography, and in that biography, there is no room for it, so it does not look like an unnecessary content fork, especially since everything looks sourced. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. The subject of the list has been the object of coverage as a group. Also, in general, when a very very notable filmmaker has a substantial filmography, a detailed article about his unmade projects, well-sourced, helps navigation and makes sense. Sources added to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly valuable article on an aspect of a prolific major director that's too long for incorporation in his main biography. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list mainly includes notable items. Not a good choice for AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NLIST. Toughpigs (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep, for reasons already stated by the above users, Scott is a prominent filmmaker, and it's useful to cover a aspect of his career (in this case, unmade films) in a separate article as it would seem out of place on the director's main page and since it is a vast amount of information. More than that, there have been countless articles which cover the topic by major publications and websites, which should back up why it's relevant to even have an article dedicated to such subject in the first place. The article also meets WP:NLIST so I see no reason why there's even a discussion of its deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 3:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
~~Maybe not a problem, but you do know that your name does not show in your signature, right?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per above as it meets WP:NLIST. The 4 sources in the lead alone show how this meets notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing objectionable here either in terms of notability or verifiability. BD2412 T 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Dream Focus 12:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
130% Keep, I believe film history and what could have been is an important thing to know when learning about film history. Film in turn is an important part of our history & culture. I'm in the keep. Along with every other director & their unmade projects should people consider deleting those. (talk) 17:30 6 Febuary 2024 (AEST) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yacob01: Maybe not a problem, but you know that your name did not show in your signature?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: @AirshipJungleman29:. Looks like a Snowball. You don't wish to withdraw in order to save time? Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes CFORK but it seemed apparently easy to gain consensus for it, if one was ever tried. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your comment but more importantly perhaps @Georgethedragonslayer:, you shouldn't !vote twice. Would you please remove your second bold /Keep/? Thanks in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 6 February 2024 (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.