Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.A.R.T. the 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   no consensus. No clear consensus on whether the sources listed constitute "significant coverage" or not. I suggest discussion continue on the article's talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

F.A.R.T. the Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a redirect to "Fart" but was restored as it had page history. I'm listing it here so we can get consensus as to whether it really is notable or not.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, doubtful this fits the notability criteria for films. Nothing in the article asserts why it is notable, either.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 01:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very Weak Keep Silly film. Silly title. However and despite the article not specifcally saying "hey, I am notable", in looking for commentary and analysis in independent sources we find this film topic appears to meet WP:NF... just barely. NOTE: In searches care must be taken to not confuse this film with the 2002 Kevin Farley film of the exact same name.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at the sources reveals a couple of reliable ones that have a generic page for the film, but almost none that give it any in-depth coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michael Q Schmidt's analysis of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Wide coverage on net. Simple search leads to review on Rottentomatoes etc Although not sure if it is worthy of being on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joer jamaica (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no critic reviews of this film (which would be reliable sources) on Rotten Tomatoes. Moreover, Michael Q Schmidt's links lead to few reliable sources either, certainly not what I'd call significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (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.