Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autobiopic

: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 merge and redirect to Biographical film (to which Biopic redirects). I have merged only (a few words about) the first meaning - autobiographical movie. The second meaning (a photograph taken of oneself) is not mentioned in any of the sources and fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Autobiopic]]=

:{{la|Autobiopic}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autobiopic}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Autobiopic}})

WP:MADEUP, WP:NEOLOGISM, at best one sentence that belongs in the Biopic article. Ridernyc (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tentative ~~delete~~. I wouldn't call this madeup, since gsearches definitely turn up decent usage of the term. However, I couldn't find anything to make this anything more than a dictionary definition. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:I could support a merge, per MQS. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge sentence to Biopic where subject has context and set redirect. Usage by [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801287.html Washington Post] and [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Autobiopic%22&cf=all others] show term is not WP:MADEUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete--there is no verifiable source for either of the claims in this barely-an-article article. Thus, I don't think it is worth the trouble to Merge as it is unclear that the term is even used/defined in durably-archived media. But if someone wants to chase down sources for the claims..., then maybe merge it. N2e (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:It's definitely used in archived media: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081801287.html The Washington Post], [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FF1B18E625AEF51&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM The Philidelphia Inquirer], and the [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09344/1019753-120.stm Pittsburgh Post-Gazette] have all used the term. Granted these are all trivial mentions, so there's nothing there to make a whole article out of, but how much trouble is it to redirect this to biopic? Jujutacular ^T · C 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Finding a place for inclusion in context of these two sentences at Biopic should not be too difficult a task, and the suggested redirect will send readers to where the topic has useage in context to the larger article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to biopic.- Wolfkeeper 16:52, 2 March 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.