Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octomom Home Alone


 * 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) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Octomom Home Alone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet criteria for WP:MOVIE. — raeky  t  05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (creator's vote). Criteria states: "3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This won an AVN Award. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the note for #3 is "This criterion is secondary." There are no established measure for "major award." It should meet other criteria as well not just #3 per the criteria. — raeky  t  06:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but . . .  For better or worse, this has received substantial coverage in mainstream sources. (Check out the results of a current GNews search for .)   I don't think it would bother me, however, if this were merged and redirected to Nadya Suleman. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the topic, the film meets the criteria for inclusion as a separate article under WP:NF. Unlike many porn films, the thing has caught the attention of mainstream press. Examples: Globe and Mail NBC News    Huffington Post   ABC News   E!  and there are more, as shown in article's current sourcing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep With undeniable regret, but this is well past WP:GNG. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as satisfying the GNG, although the suggested redirect would be OK, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2013 (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.