Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Feet 2

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. There is enough consensus even without taken account the SPA comments. JForget 22:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Feet 2

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:N. Supposed sequel, but has not started production and not enough significant coverage to actually support. Nothing but a big rumor mill at this point. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI've added a citation to the Happy Feet 2 article pointing to a December 2009 Hollywood Reporter article on voice recording beginning in January or February 2010. -- John Dhabolt (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also added a citation for information and used the citation already given to cover other information in the article. It should be noted that Collectonian very recently blanked the article rather than either (1) looking for citations that can be found easily or (2) tagged where citations are needed. It is hard to see this blanking as anything other than vandalism designed to encourage people to vote to delete the article. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — 142.68.47.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You added one source, which again does not show the movie is being filmed and considering it confirms only one person's reprisal of the role who is now dead, the article does NOT meet our future film notability guidelines. Further, do not call the removal of an invalid infobox and of statements labeled clearly as "rumors" and that were uncited vandalism. If you have actual sourced content to add, then add it, but to not add made up stories and do not insult other editors by calling their valid edits vandalism when you are not an editor yourself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Hollywood Reporter article does confirm that the film is being made. The recording of voices is said to be happening starting this month, and for an animated film this is production. The article also mentions who is doing the animation. So I think there is enough confirmation to keep the article. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Said to be starting, not actually starting and considering one of the voice actresses just died recently, I'd doubt they are still on schedule. Thus far, the only "sources" are confirmations of the attempt, but not any actual confirmation of the title, its really being in production, and anything else. At best, the redirect that was there should be restored or it should be merged to the first article, but as it is, they haven't confirmed the title will be Happy Feet 2, so delete seems better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter article names the title of the film as "Happy Feet 2". It looks to me like there is a title for it. But there is little information about the film, so placing this as a subsection of the Happy Feet article would not be a bad idea for now. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to placing the article back as a section within Happy Feet again. I'm still trying to get my bearings when it comes to what should be added, and when...I would agree that I was probably premature in taking it from the section it was in and creating a stand-alone article. Things will likely clear up with this movie in the next sixty days. -- John Dhabolt (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Incubate without prejudice toward recreation. A quick search finds that the proposed film is receiving a significant amount coverage toward meeting WP:GNG and the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL's "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". There's A Pakistani News, Toon Zone News, New York Magazine, Courier Mail, Embrace Australia, The Age, Los Angeles Times, The Australian, Brisbane Times, The Australian and more. As voice recording commences and the animation work begins, it is reasonable to expect this film will receive even more... not less. Deletion is not a proper solution to a correctable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of reportage about the sequel. If the known facts seem slight then the matter might be merged into the article about the original movie pending further news. Deletion seems quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources provided by Schmidt satisfy WP:NFF. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:15, 6 January 2010 (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.