Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hooligan Factory(film)

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 redirect to Nick Nevern . Mojo Hand (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hooligan Factory(film)[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL this is a plan, not a movie. Error 404 at even IMDB. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: no longer a Error 404 Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: the IMDb error came from someone putting it into the template incorrectly. I've fixed that, although I have no comment about notability at this time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. GregJackP Boomer! 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Time to use some Google-fu. Keep or at least Incubate for a few weeks, as deletion is not required for a completed and soon-to-be-released film that is spoken of in multiple reliable sources. And by the way... let's fix the article title while we're at it. Under WP:NCF we do not in this instance require the disambig "(film)".. much less having it squished up against the title (thus confusing the findsources set up by the AFD template). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to Nick Nevern with history. There's just enough here to where it might be keepable as a weak keep, but I'm more leaning towards redirecting this to the director's page with history. He's notable enough and we can always redirect to the director's article and un-redirect when/if more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It seems likely that this will get more coverage closer to (and after) release. Merging to the Nick Nevern article might be more appropriate. If this was shelved now and didn't receive any more coverage would it be worth an article? Probably not, but we can revisit it in a few months if kept. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the director Nick Nevern until sources are available to confirm this film's release or at least impending release. If the film is indeed notable, the redirect can be undone and the page restored at the appropriate time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 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.