Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamaboy


 * 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. The consensus among editors is that sufficient source coverage about this upcoming film's production exists to satisfy the notability standards for future films. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mamaboy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unrreleased film —teb728 t c 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) To be more specific it fails WP:NFILM. —teb728 t c 06:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a Movie that just wrapped. I does not need to be deleted. Boxofchickens is just upset because iot no longer redirects to a page that it does not need to be redirected to. The movie info is of more interest to the general public. --SacramentoJoe (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ssт✈(discuss) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete.The article is now correctly formatted and sourced and I see nothing wrong with it. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 04:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with it is that it doesn't satisfy the notability standard for films. (Films almost never satisfy that standard until they are released and draw public response.) —teb728 t c 06:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... unreleased films can (and often do) meet inclusion criteria, and to state otherwise is an incorrect thing to tell any . Inclusion for any topic is based upon available sources and is only modified by guideline. So please go re-read WP:NF to see the gross error of your assertion. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This isn't the most strongly sourced article, but the filming did seem to get a small amount of coverage that confirmed the filming start and stop. It's sort of weak sauce coverage, but it's enough to make it technically pass NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Has at least one mainstream actor, appears to meet minimum NFILM standard.   Montanabw (talk)  01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * STRONGEST Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 2). Come on, it does meet inclusion criteria of WP:NF for completed and yet unreleased film, and even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE shows the topic of this film's production as eminently meeting notability for a completed film:  Sac Lake Express, Sacramento Bee, American River Current, ABC 10 News, Sacramento Business Journal, Sacramento Bee, and more.  This should never have been brought to AFD.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reason it was originally nominated for speedy deletion is because it was unsourced and formatted like an advertisement. I only reverted it back to the redirect because of the advertisement-like formatting, which the creator then fixed. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is blame to go around for the modified re-speedying and an improper AFD, but I appreciate you saying "do not delete" above.  Schmidt,  Michael Q.


 * 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.