Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattanites


 * 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. Secret account 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Manhattanites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single source Fails WP:GNG. The source (Hollywood Today Newsmagazine) is about the DVD launch party (obvious puff piece) and doesn't count. Is there coverage 5 years on? Are there multiple sources? In the previous AfD, one keep vote was from a now blocked sock. COI creator. Widefox ; talk 09:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Related AFD: Articles for deletion/ManhattanitesTheMovie


 * Delete Fails GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Add filmyear to address false positives:
 * director 1:
 * director 2:
 * actress:
 * actor:
 * actor:
 * actor:
 * production:


 * Weak keep per interest in and coverage by those Soap Opera sources specializing in coverage of soap stars and their projects.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno looks like a passing mention in an interview. Are there 2 strong sources?  Widefox ; talk 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, in such as Soap Opera Digest and similar: We Love Soaps West Side Spirit Soaps In Depth Covering Media Independent Film Reviews Daytime Confidential Michael Fairman et al. Definitely not reviewed by Variety or New York Times.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * welovesoaps.net is an interview - not especially strong source, and looks like a PR release promo content. http://abc.soapsindepth.com/2011/11/larson-dishes-on-the-bay.html is passing mention (article is about THE BAY), http://www.independentfilmreviews.com/manhattanites/ doesn't look RS - it is UGC. Are there 2 strong ones?! Widefox ; talk 15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MOVIE
 * 1. - doesn't appear to satisfy distrib
 * 2. no
 * 3. no
 * 4. no
 * 5. no
 * Widefox ; talk 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Best read WP:OEN to gain better understanding of how to apply "Other evidence of notability".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if I understand your OEN, you're just saying don't take examples too literally. What's the film notable for Michael? Maybe it launched a soap star to film career? I don't know, what I do know is...
 * WP:INHERITED - notability of the soap stars isn't inherited (and coverage fluff on them). We've got no claim of notability or enduring impact for the film, no award, nothing past 5 years etc, no review yet ( is UGC so not RS), no plot source yet (and none at IMDB). Straight to DVD and forgotten about. Agree if these weak sources helped substantiate something, but this falls below GNG, without much RS to base an article. Widefox ; talk 10:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my argument for a "weak keep" was as clear as could be made, and NOT per the WP:INHERITED argument you bring forth, though we might consider WP:NTEMP when considering that it has not received continued coverage for years after its release. As soap operas and their stars are not usually the topic of major media, we may consider the genre coverage they receive in the genre sources covering their genre... coverage in such as Soap Opera Digest and similar: We Love Soaps West Side Spirit Soaps In Depth Covering Media Independent Film Reviews Daytime Confidential Michael Fairman et al. might be seen as showing a genre "cult following". Again, definitely not something reviewed by Variety or New York Times... and while such "major" media would be nice, they are not a mandate. Thanks  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  07:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Relisting comment: While relistings are ordinarily limited to two, relisting this one more time to allow time for the rationale in the keep !vote above and sources presented to be further considered. NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't appear to have the required significant coverage in reliable sources. Likely COI/spam. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:44, 10 July 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.