Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stardance project

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 keep. Article is quite measurably improved from the beginning of the AfD nomination. Two WP:V sources seem adequate to keep it. I feel it could use more info and sources but I expect such could be found. Pigman☿ 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stardance project

There are no independent reliable sources for this upcoming movie project. Which makes it fail WP:V. per WP:CRYSTAL Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable sources, no article, giving it not a snowball's chance in hell of inclusion in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independent sources, and it is 'an attempt to bring', not even a true future project. No amount of future tags can fix that. Pharmboy (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I always feel nervous going against a snowballing consensus, but i feel this case was glossed over and not investigated far enough. The "attempt to bring" was apparently misleading, because this project was covered by two small yet reliable unrelated sources (The Montreal Gazette via Canada.com, Dalhousie University), and two days ago (per those reviews) the pre-production was supposed to be done aboard a Zero-G Corporation aircraft. The article is poorly written and makes this seem like entirely speculation, but I believe otherwise. Tag as expert, unreferenced, and cleanup, perhaps, but I think this project shows notability. If someone can show me specifically which part of WP:NOTE this fails, I could be convinced to change my mind. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability is the responsibility of the author to establish, and not the responsibility of others to 'disprove' (can't prove a negative). Pharmboy (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it would be nice if every author built notability assertions into their article. However, if I see that there is notability, even if the author didn't take the time to show it, I think the article should stay. While there obviously needs to be oversight on articles, and a lot need to be deleted, the purpose of the AfD discussion is to take dubious articles and see if they meet guidelines. Massive cleanup, yes. Delete, no. The bigger point here is to have notable information be included on Wiki. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Do you think it violates a certain Wikipedia policy, or would cleanup/rewrite/source make it more "encyclopedic"? Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Summary' should be at the bottom of the article. Add introduction. The article should be categorized. And, find some reliable sources. It will be very difficult for the article to survive. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first three of those things can be taken care of by editing, and Tanthalas has found sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tanthalas has found the necessary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Tanthalas. matt91486 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work, Tanthalas. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:51, 9 January 2008 (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.