Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All About You (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. Closing this early per the consensus that has formed here. The nominator withdrew, and the sole remaining delete !vote has been countered by improvements within the article. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 07:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

All About You (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't find that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 4 years, so I thought a discussion was needed. Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Has no citations and therefore is composed entirely of original research. Johnny338 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The initial state of the article was fairly bad and it did take some digging, but I found that RT has four reviews for the film and I found a DVD Talk review. It also seems to have won some awards at notable film festivals and altogether this is enough to justify it passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (or speedy keep after an expected withdrawal). To : With respects, being neglected is a reason to use some WP:BEFORE and fix, not delete. See WP:NOTCLEANUP.  To : Simply lacking citations does not automatically make a sourcable topic "original research".  And while yes, the article as first nominated had issues, they were addresable. A little research and editing by User:Tokyogirl79 brought the article into line with MOS:FILM. The film easily meets WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Expanded searches:


 * Keep it's sourced and meets notability guideline for films LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. All's well that ends well. The article was improved, and that's all that's important.  Rotten Tomatoes is a good starting point for notability, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep After the article was improved there doesn't seem to be any reason to delete it. That's what these discussions are for, it seems. Adamh4 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm happy that it meets the guidelines now. I withdraw my nomination, although as there was another delete vote, I'm unsure that this can be made a speedy keep? However, the article is totally different to the article nominated. Thanks for the comments and for User:Tokyogirl79's hard work. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the withdrawal. As Johnny338 was invited back to this discussion and has not returned (yet). As his first reason to delete was addressed and his second was simply incorrect, I think this can indeed be closed early. Be well.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:50, 27 May 2014 (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.