Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat Head (Documentary)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fat Head (Documentary)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Film fails all of the notability criteria for films. This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere. A google search for "Fat Head" "Tom Naughton" reveals some coverage in blogs, but nothing that would satisfy the general notability requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now. Yilloslime T C  04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not using "This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere." as a reason, are you? - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. Add is basically another platforming of one of many who guestioned Super Size Me (indeed, some points are nearly word from word from dozens of other sites) Also curious about it being a "2009" article, when the one RS I did find is from 2008, while I see blog postings about it from 2007? As an aside, considering SPA nature of the creator and ad-like quality of the article (repleat with spam) and his deprodding his own article, I would guess this was created by Naughton or one of his representatives. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing relevant notability criteria. Note that I was notified of the article here, FWIW, though I think it fails notability pretty unarguably. MastCell Talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I.e. the Chronical review is great but until another couple of reviewers pick it up it's too early for a Wikipedia article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy back to author as just a tad premature.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with the review in Box Office Magazine added by Squeakles it scrapes by on notability grounds. Whether it needs cutting down to get rid of unverifiable material is not a case for AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A single review isn't significant coverage though. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2009 (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.