Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMO the Musical

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMO the Musical[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film ... wikipedia as promotionl platform. Fails GNG. Beware false positives for an American musical with the same name. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#EMO_the_Musical --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~. I would say userfy but the creator has been blocked. Draft could be useful after the film releases; no need to waste the info. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not just some blocked editor's work. At the COI proceeding, Tokyogirl79 reports:
*OK, I've worked on the article. It looks like this releases in August so I'd recommend just sitting on this for now. The coverage is light but slightly enough to where it could pass WP:NFF if we wanted to be especially charitable. If it releases in August and gains no coverage then I'd suggest maybe nominating it or at the very least changing it to refer to the short film rather than the feature film.

The article should be a combo article about both the short film and the feature. I will revise it slightly in the lede. And the feature's principal filming is done, and the article is factual and sourced. --do ncr am 03:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram's improvements. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has undergone significant improvements and referencing since its nomination. It now clearly satisfies WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.