Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen At Work

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen At Work[edit]

Non-notable independent film series still in production by a non-notable amateur filmmaker. -- Longhair 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair 06:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal-ballism. Ambi 06:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment. There is an article about how the series is being written here, so it is verifiable at least. There seems to be a little mininetwork of barely notable articles relating to this guy, his work and frie--er, colleagues.pfctdayelise 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per noncrystalballism. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 05:55Z
Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. It's a great title, though. Cnwb 05:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. enochlau (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2006 (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.