Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilla (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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla (film)

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

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article adds nothing to Wikipedia and doesn't have any information in it. It should either be merged to the director who made the film. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE would have been helpful here. Plenty of reviews and other coverage of this film can be found easily[1]: here for starters are reviews by Variety[2], the San Francisco Chronicle, [3], Roger Ebert [4], and Janet Maslin in The New York Times[5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to expand it? Because otherwise, I see no reason for it to remain. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reason to keep or delete should really not be based solely upon current state, and per policy should be based upon notability of the topic itself, and its WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. Stubs are welcome, as they encourage collaborative editing, and AFD is not to be used to force improvemenmt. "Fix it NOW or delete it", is a very poor deletion rationale. Please read WP:PERFECTION and WP:HANDLE, and please understand that your nomination rationale fails WP:DEL#REASON. Also, please take a look at WP:Somebody Else's Problem. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an excellent reason for this article to remain: the film is notable, as Arxiloxos has so ably shown. As for nominator's statement that the article "doesn't have any information in it", that is incorrect. The article makes a strong claim of notability about the film; namely that it was the last film role by one of the 20th century's greatest actors of stage and screen, Jessica Tandy. The article lists ten members of the cast and crew, includes an image of the poster for the film, includes the release date and links to other films by the same director. Admittedly, the article is a stub, but we don't delete stubs on notable topics. Instead, we expand them and improve them through the normal editing process. I think the nominator would be an excellent person to take on that volunteer task, but failing that, other volunteer editors will do so, I am sure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "Critical reception" section to the article, quoting from 3 reviews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who doesn't know anything about the topic, I wouldn't have known those things, thus it clearly did not have any information about it. And I would hardly call having an info box with a few names hugely informational. The article had only been edited 8 times in 2 years, so if people think this should stay, surely it shouldn't take more than 2 and a half years to expand it. And I have no interest in improving this article, you seem to know a lot about it, so perhaps you should, as you feel so strongly. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had chose to follow the wise precepts of WP:BEFORE, you would know something about the topic because you would have investigated it before nominating the article for deletion. I knew nothing about the film before this debate, but now I know a fair amount, because I spent a few minutes reading up on it. That simply increased my respect for Jessica Tandy, and it wasn't at all hard to learn more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. WP:NOEFFORT is not a proper rationale to continue wishing deletion, as notability is to be found through the topic's available sources, and NOT decided by an article's current and improvable state. See WP:DEADLINE, WP:HANDLE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:ITJ. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close. "We don't delete stubs on notable topics" hits the nail squarely on the head. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speedy close per poor deletion rationale that refects a possible misunderstanding of editing policy and deletion policy toward a demonstrably notable topic. So it was a stub when nominated? Not a big deal and deletion is NOT the preferred option for an improvable stub. What BUILDS an encyclopedia is editors working collaboratively to improve stubs, not tossing them because they might meed work, specially with the nominator's admission that he is someone "who doesn't know anything about the topic". Tough to set oneself up to judge a topic's potential if you do not know the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 29 October 2011 (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.