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 delete. And the title has been protected so only admins can recreate an article with the title "Upcoming movies".SilkTork *^YES! 00:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff; list is non-sourced. mhking (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete really. Clubmarx (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT. The title alone is asking for a re-creation. DJ 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt. WP:NOTDIR, WP:CRYSTAL. Totally unmaintainable list. Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification - the list as it stands is probably not crystal. But the name just invites crystalline additions. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just an indiscriminate list, not encyclopedic material. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per A new name 2008 -- MARWAT  05:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR — vvv^t 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per A new name 2008, and Wp:SALT as per DJ. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So... welcome to AfD, something nobody has heard of until they've written an article. I appreciate that it's a new editor with a first contribution, and I think I understand what's envisioned (i.e., a list that people could use to tell, at a glance, the coming attractions). But there are a number of problems with this type of article, as described above. Even if there was information about the expected release date of these films, even if someone set out to amend the list as movies were released or announced, and even if one could keep tabs with the world's films, Wikipedia isn't a news service and it's not a directory. Keep contributing, it takes time to learn the rules. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the sentiments expressed. Sometimes we just get a little bit fatigued from those AfD discussions. BTW, from what I can gather from this user's talk, in the space of less than 30 minutes, he got (1) two CSD notices; (2) one AfD notice; (3) one (straight) level 3 warning; and (4) one final warning for (?) vandalizing one of his own creations (perhaps removing the CSD template?)? Whatever happened to WP:BITE? I'm not soft at warning vandals, but this seems too far. Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with your concerns over how this new editor has been treated. He apparently created 3 articles, and within minutes 2 were speedied, this was sent to AfD, and he was issued a warning about being blocked for creating inappropriate content, without anyone apparently ever bothering to explain to him why it was inappropriate. He was then issued a "final" warning for vandalizing one of the articles he created, even though he apparently never had any prior vandalism warnings. This treatment appears to be way overboard. Deleting the articles is certainly appropriate, but the warnings - especially a final vandalism warning for a first offense - without apparent attempt at explanation seem troubling. Rlendog (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't blame the "final" warner. It's an automated warning from Huggle by someone doing RC Patrol, which automatically issues a level 4 warning when it detects a level 3 one. The problem is with the previous level 3 warning, which is semi-automated. That one should never have been issued IMO, or, at most, a level 1 warning would have been much, much better. I've tried to soften the blow on his talk page, but it seems that he's gone, and I can't really blame him, either. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (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.