Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whispers Like Thunder

The result was delete. I've left a note for the creator in case he wants it userifed. Spellcast (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:{{la|Whispers Like Thunder}} ([{{fullurl:Whispers Like Thunder|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whispers Like Thunder}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Page has very little content on the film itself, and categories suggest blatantly false information such as being a part of the National Film Registry. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Is any of this salvageable? There's an awful lot of stuff in this article (some of it referenced) that isn't about the film, so perhaps there is a more appropriate place for it elsewhere. As for the film itself, basically it's been announced and that's it, so an article at this point is inapropriate per WP:NFF. Maybe userfy rather than delete. PC78 (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Most of the content appears to be about the court case rather than the film. It might be solid under another name or if an appriopriate merge target can be found, it might be mergeable. That said, in it's current form it's deleteable as a film article. Both 2009 and 2010 film article categories means the release date is not known yet, so it can't be a national registry film, they only include films with some sort of importance to the film world and a film that isn't yet finished obviously can't claim such notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy this amazing and quite well written and sourced article. I suggest it be returned to the author so it might be reworked to become The Wyandotte/Wyandot peace pact (or something similar) with the film conection being a part of the overall article. Yes, it fails WP:NFF, but certainly passes WP:N for its history alone. Its a keeper... but it needs to be determined just where. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy per MichaelQSchmidt above. Per WP:NFF, we shouldn't have an article on the film yet; but the content of this article is worth preserving, as it is mostly about the historical events rather than the film, and could probably be reworked into a separate article or else merged somewhere. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.