Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TuTuMUCH


 * 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. Tone 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

TuTuMUCH

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD: May not fulfill notability standards.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — Jeff G. ツ 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would like to discuss the proposed deletion of the TuTuMUCH page. I believe that it does contain notable material, but if additional sources, such as national newspaper reviews, are needed, please let me know how to insert those properly in the text. I don't want to be accused of advertising later
 * Thanks!
 * HNich86 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G.&diff=prev&oldid=364348968  — Jeff G. ツ 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment: HNich86, if you have reviews, news articles, or other materials made by third parties with no prompting/incentive from the movie producers or distributors, then it would be a good idea to use those materials as references in the article and you should add them right away. They would not be considered advertising provided you follow WP:NPOV. If you have a conflict of interest you may wish to post the articles on the talk page for the article and see if anyone else will add and discuss them in the article. ialsoagree (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are two reviews, if someone would like to add them:

Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/750852--tutumuch-summer-school-for-aspiring-swans

Winnipeg Sun: http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/2010/01/13/12451861.html

Thanks

24.77.51.193 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Reviews in two respectable Canadian newspapers would seem to establish the notability of this film. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Per the comment above, notability seems to be met. ialsoagree (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable per WP:GNG by having received significant coverage in two reliable sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2010 (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.