Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mason Brothers


 * 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 06:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Mason Brothers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources in this article are a collection of press releases following the release of a trailer notably in blogs. Several are identical in every way on 2 podcasts here and here. Identical press releases 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 or translated press release from here to here. The Tampa Bay article is on PRLink or press release page. In short almost all of the links are from press releases with the exception of a couple of blogs and podcasts. Fails WP:NFILM and is clearly promotional. Domdeparis (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is in poor shape, many refs are no good, but the LA Times and other outlets wrote about it. Will continue to check GNG vs Nfilm.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I just found the LA times review...I now know why the creator didn't add it, here is an extract "but this lifeless serving of soggy pulp packs all the gritty authenticity of a gummy vitamin." hahaha I wonder if it should be added! Domdeparis (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just found another review..."There was very little that I liked in this rather boring film, including the story and the characters. The run time was just under two hours, but it felt longer." I think we can agree that there are enough elements to prove WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That said I will not withdraw the nomination to give others the possibility to !vote delete (including the filmmaker himself he may want to see this article disappear rapidly). Domdeparis (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Some RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It doesn't have much coverage from the bigger critics/publications, but just about has enough to pass WP:GNG. If there was an article on the director, a merge might be considered, but as it stands, with no obvious merge candidate, keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * year/type:
 * director/star:
 * studio:
 * distributor:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:


 * Keep per plenty of sources available for this released film. Needs work, yes... but simply needing work is not a reason to delete a notable topic.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we want another relist or a NAC or an Admin closure? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm OK with a NAC as a withdrawal but I wanted to see how it panned out see the panning of the film; Domdeparis (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as appropriately covered to meet notability. Nom, if you're considering withdrawing, I'd encourage you to save somebody the extra work.   --Lockley (talk) 02:05, 15 June 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.