Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked As We Came


 * 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. North America1000 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Naked As We Came

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a film, which just states and single-sources that it existed without suggesting anything about it that would actually satisfy WP:NFILM. As always, a film doesn't automatically get an article just because it cites one review in one publication -- notability because Oscars can be single-sourced at first (but still requires more sources than that before the article can be deemed good), but notability just because it's been reviewed requires several reviews and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: This page was created just 5 days before this AfD nomination. Let's give its creator more of a chance to make something of the page instead of BITEing off his/her head with an instant AfD. — Gpc62 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The length of time that a page has existed is not relevant to its keepability or deletability. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However, what is relevant is WP:BEFORE to find (even if unused coverage) to show meeting WP:NF per WP:NEXIST. 11:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Schmidt,  Michael Q.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Cited New York Times review plus others from significant sources (Rotten Tomatoes has the Daily News, Village Voice, and PopMatters)  is enough to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yet another nomination based solely on article quality. The four professional reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes are sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Easily found full reviews in New York Times and Huff Post and Wicked Local and Hollywood Reporterand Pop Matters are quite moconvincing. Sorry, but was WP:BEFORE followed? Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow keep as an ugly little improvable stub which has the coverage to meet WP:NF. (sorry ). Since being poorly written or sourced is not the criteria and WP:NEXIST is, let's fix it, not toss it out. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:05, 11 December 2017 (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.