Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night at the Museum

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. — Caknuck 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)W.marsh 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Night at the Museum

The Night at the Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not a notable book besides being the base of the movie, hardly any contributors-most recent was in Febuary. Lemonflash|_{(speak out)} 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep So presumably it IS notable because it was the 'base' of the movie? Valid stubs should be expanded, not deleted. Nick mallory 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion state: The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. the_undertow ^talk 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable author plus notable movie adaptation, the book definitely deserves an article. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the movie article. make a section about how the movie was based on the book. Either that, or some how incorporate it into the text (in the introduction?) —A • D ^Torque 05:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be expanded, not deleted. Clearly notable book as it has been adapted into a movie. Resolute 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The book is notable since the film is notable, if that wasn't the case then they wouldn't get mentioned together so often in my googly results. Here's one good source - Interview with the author, it even contains an image for the infobox which the article doesn't have yet. Author has own site (primary source). Even if the two eventually do get merged, the film article doesn't look too hot and adding two lines about the book isn't going to encourage anyone to write on it. QuagmireDog 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this is barely a WP:STUB, but it seems valid per WP:BK and all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - If this book was the base for a rather well-popularized movie, then keep. ;-) Cheers, R∞R ^[iTalk] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - If the book wasn't notable, then there wouldn't be a movie, now would there? The Hippie 20:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I rewrote the article to emphasize notability. - Freechild 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep supposed reason for deletion is actually a criteria for keeping. i kan reed 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there wouldn't be a movie on it if it wasn't notable, there has been expansion done to it since nominated. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article seems to be more of a stub, which means that there is room for expansion, not deletion. Aquatics ^{Guard Alert} 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. --Sable232 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh give me a fucking break. RFerreira 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung & Aquatics. This is a stub and it is notable.--Cailil ^talk 15:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - err... (need I say more?) Matthew 20:04, 9 May 2007 (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.