Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Dory

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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Dory

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

No announcement of production start date, fails WP:NFF Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination - This article is notable enough to be kept on its own page. I guess I made a mistake. My apologies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is exactly why WP:IAR exists. The script has already been written and Ellen DeGeneres has been confirmed as starring as Dory. The announcement of the film has received international attention. Local: Wall Street Journal [1], Los Angeles Times [2], International Business Times [3], Bloomberg [4], Huffington Post [5] and currently referred to from The Daily Beast [6]. International:Globo News [7], Veja (magazine) [8] The Daily Telegraph (Australia) [9] Herald Sun [10]. Also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (2012 film). Ryan Vesey 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF, "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." But in this particular case, WP:IAR might apply here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that it appears that Brave was still in pre-production when it was kept in June 29, 2010 and that the article existed since April 9, 2008; although the second part means less because that could be an aspect of nobody having tried to nominate it. Ryan Vesey 18:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sources to meet WP:GNG. Even if not kept as a standalone article, the sourced material should be merged to Finding Nemo#Sequel and this should be retained as a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily meets WP:GNG, which trumps NFF in this csae. Really similar to what happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (2012 film) (AfD, kept, two years before release).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (film) (2nd nomination) (AfD, keep, over THREE years before release). Why? Because it already met GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and for reasoning already pointed out by other users, regarding its similarity to what transpired with Brave and Cars 2 Also, if we were to delete this article, then why shouldn't the same be done for The Good Dinosaur? That film, also has yet to produce any verifiable sources indicating that it's out of pre-production and it doesn't even have any confirmed casting. If The Good Dinosaur meets WP:GNG, so does Finding Dory.~ Jedi94 (talk)
Strong Merge to Finding Nemo. While I'm okay with articles for films before production starts, I believe that there has to be as significant amount of content that would be too much too include elsewhere. At this point in time, I do not that is the case. All of the information can very easily be included at Finding Nemo without overfilling the page (in fact, most of the content is already there). When there is significantly more information available, or when production starts, it should be made into a full article. JDDJS (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Finding Nemo. Fails WP:NFF. Also consider using Wikipedia:Article Incubator. The Avengers 2, which is also scheduled to be released in 2015, has its own incubator page.Richiekim (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Future fiulms are generally not notable, but sometimes there are exceptions. This is clearly one of those cases as there is plenty of material available to satisfy the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep 1. Major new film of one of the top grossing animated films ever. 2.Lot's of verifiable sources.--RandomLittleHelper talk 22:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its confirmed x100! ARTPOPist (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable enough and meets WP:GNG is why delete it? - Camyoung54 talk 01:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Even if this page were to be deleted, another one like it would eventually be made because the movie will come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.235.22 (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 April 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.