Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muffin Top: A Love Story


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Muffin Top: A Love Story

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced listing for a non-notable film. Calton | Talk 11:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 12:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. It took some digging since not all of the search hits came up easily in a Google search, but I managed to find enough sourcing to show notability. I can see where Calton's concern came from, since some of these wouldn't have easily surfaced if I didn't use the official website as a guide to finding coverage. Calton, would you be willing to withdraw? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You've ginned up a lot of minor sources; you haven't demonstrated anything resembling actual notability. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviews aren't considered to be minor and there's quite a few of them - four, if you don't count the movie's listing on the Chicagoist's "worst of" article, which many likely would. Other than that there are seven sources and while some of these are brief, I'm not really relying on those for notability given that so many major publications reviewed the work. This is more than enough to assert notabiltiy per WP:NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * EASY Keep per true diligence finding multiple independent sources offering more-than-trivial information to meet WP:NF. I note that while often preferred, WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is not a mandate nor an absolute under WP:GNG... however, the Washington Examiner interview IS more-than-substantial. Parade is more-than-substantial. Monterey County Weekly is more-than-substantial.  Business Journals is more-than-substantial.  NJ.com is more-than-substantial.  twincities.com is more-than-substantial.  The Oakland Press review is more-than-substantial.  Windy City Media is more-than-trivial.  Star Tribune review is more-than-trivial.  Chicagoist is more-than-substantial. WP:NF is well exceeded.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep at this point, Tokyogirl79 has expanded and referenced the article it where it's amply clear the film meets GNG. Good work! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets the notability guideline for films thanks to the efforts of Tokyogirl79. Sam Sailor Talk! 09:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Keep" plenty of sources now 46.208.73.116 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (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.