Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Gay Movie


 * 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 KEEP of unneccessay AFD. Nominator has repeatedly nom'd articles without showing due diligence, and shows a lack of understanding of WP:NRVE's instruction that topic notability is dependent upon existence of sources (easily found) and not upon use or not in an article. Had he looked, he would have found them. Kudos and appreciations to for improving the article even though AFD is not to be used to force improvements. Good job. As topic notability is so obvious, continuing this AFD is an embarrassment, and I am happy to close it. If continues, it may result in an WP:ANI, so I urge he be more careful.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Gay Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NF. No RS.  Pax 05:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient reviews to pass WP:NF, I think. rotten tomatoes points to a few, a couple of which are apparently outdated links but nonetheless pulled from the respective publications' websites: Boston Globe, Fresno Bee, EURWeb, Entertainment Weekly, Digital Spy, Shadows on the Wall (Boston Globe and Entertainment Weekly are "top critics"). Not listed on Rotten Tomatoes is a review on new York Times, Film Threat, and others that I didn't bother getting to as NF seemed sufficiently satisfied already. @Nom did you search for sources before nominating? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - National attention by many reviews, we do not need anything like Rotten Tomatoes when there is a small gold mine of newspaper articles and other coverage. In a digital age, the links can 404, but Highbeam has allowed me to pull quite a bit of content from this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet again the nominator has failed to explain why the article does not meet the quoted policy. Just linking to a policy is not a deletion rational. Please Раціональне анархіст stop making low quality AfD noms, it is getting disruptive. Chillum 19:39, 9 January 2015 (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.