Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaman (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 Speedy delete. GB fan 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman (film)

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

not an article Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially improved It currently consists of 1 word, but it's only been in existence 90 minutes. It could be a WP:SPEEDY A3: no content, unless the editor who created it returns very soon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3 and/or A1 - The article has no content that would be worth userfying or continuing at this point in time. If the author decides to continue work, I think the author can easily rewrite the article in his or her userspace. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above; for the record, however, note that the fictional Aquaman film that was a central plot point on Entourage and the so-far unsuccessful efforts to produce a real Aquaman film are well-covered at Aquaman in popular media. One might consider redirecting this title to that article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Aquaman_in_popular_media#Aquaman_film. This would have merit as a redirect to that section, but not as its own article. The film was originally supposed to release this year but never moved past the pre-planning stages as far as I can tell. There's nothing that can be put in this article that isn't already in the above section. If/when this does get made and filming starts, we can create an article. At this point in time there's not really much merit in having an article for a film that might not get made.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 24 January 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.