Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostly Ghostly: Have You Met My Ghoulfriend


 * 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   redirect to Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out?. Of note is that in a comment, User:Rpclod also stated (after their delete !vote), "Redirection and merge would be ok. So is userfication". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Mostly Ghostly: Have You Met My Ghoulfriend

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about a DVD. Fails WP:GNG notability. The only available sources are press releases and mirrored articles promoting the DVD. - MrX 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails notability and has no reliable refernces. Staglit (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mostly_Ghostly:_Who_Let_the_Ghosts_Out%3F with history. The film has yet to receive enough (or any) coverage to merit it having its own article at this point in time, but it would probably work as a redirect to the article for the first film. I say leave the history intact because it is entirely possible that the film will receive enough coverage later to merit it being un-redirected. If/when that happens, it'd be nice to have a ready article history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, Temporary redirect to Mostly_Ghostly:_Who_Let_the_Ghosts_Out%3F with history. Nominator is incorrect to assert information on this completed and unreleased film is only available in press releases as due diligence finds Empty Lighthouse Magazine, Broadway World, Hi-Def Digest, New York Times, and Daily Mail among others. Until determined ready, we can at least send readers to where it makes sense to have this completed film topic spoken. I was vacillating on a keep as (and I wish to point out to both User:MrX and User:Staglit) that even without their being used in the article (NOT a madate) it might be seen that, thorough coverage of film and production, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met already.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources you linked to are ones I referred to as "mirrored articles promoting the DVD", specifically lighthouse.com, broadwayworld.com, and highdefdigest.com all of which promote the DVD near the end of each article. The NYT listing is not a article. Ironically, the DailyMail article is the most informative, although the publication itself is largely regarded as unreliable around here. I believe the subject fails WP:MOVIE which states "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." Most of the available source articles come from this press release. That said, I have no objection to redirecting the title as proposed by Tokyogirl79. - MrX 13:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * About a DVD or a theatrical or television release is not the issue. An independent article in a reliable source which shares information on the topic being discussed, is not considered  promotion under Wikipedia definitions. And I was purposely NOT speaking about simple reprints of press releases, as reliable sources are allowed to quote a press release in their greater coverage of a film topic. If a reliable source quotes a press release and then moves on to give examples and expand on the topic in context, it is also not promotion per our definitions. And by the way, by their having editorial staff and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, Daily Mail meets the criteria as a reliable source "around here"... unless somehow now demoted by the reliable sources noticeboard.  That clarified, I am still supportive of a temporary redirect.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:12, 1 August 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 02:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Delete - Upcoming? WP:TOOSOON--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be open to the idea of redirecting this with history as opposed to just outright deleting everything? I think that it'd be more reasonable to leave the history intact and just redirect it for now. If anyone un-redirects it before it's ready, we can always re-redirect it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirection and merge would be ok. So is userfication.--Rpclod (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect. No refs, too soon, leave history for now. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 15 August 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.