Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me & You, Us, Forever

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me & You, Us, Forever[edit]

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

Film is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Dkchana (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG— [1], [2] and [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changed vote to speedy keep per more sources researched by user:GRuban below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those would be enough, but in addition, there are also substantial articles in Mountain Xpress [4], National Catholic Reporter [5], Times Record News [6], and Altoona Mirror[7] --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I see no guidelines violated, it is an encyclopedic, very informative and detailed almost start class article, doese not have many citations, but the ones it has back up the article entirely. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No problems whatsoever. Completely invalid nomination. Once again, nom did not look at the cited sources, nor conduct any work per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. --Lexein (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and invite nominator to a fish dinner. WP:JNN is a poor deletion rationale, multiple reliable sources are available with due diligence, and nominator has shown a misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trout are for subtle cluefulness adjustments, and may be considered delicious, or even a compliment. May I instead suggest a whale date? --Lexein (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced. Invmog (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Overwhelming sources as provided above. GuterTag (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It seems like a case of WP:Tag bombing to me. There are just so many Afds by this nominator, it is hard to count them. Time to stop. May well require a chat/warning from an admin, but not necessarily a block. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources were found. Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, it rather easy to find things here. Bad nominations as nominate did not follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 11:49, 24 October 2011 (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.