Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jsmboinick

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 delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jsmboinick[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur movie. Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence that this comes anywhere near WP:NFILM. (The perils of not having speedy deletion criteria for creative works, including films shot by a group of teenagers and uploaded to Youtube.) AllyD (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, CSD is lower standard than is WP:N, and as there are (rare) instances where amateur films have been found notable, not having speedies for films is a safety net that acts to prevent errors, however well-intended. My own delete rationale is below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; fails the Reliable sources section of WP:NF. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW - acutely and terminally non-notable. Stalwart111 12:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources that report in depth on this at all are unreliable. Maybe transfer to Wikia? ^King Jakob _C2 13:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a complete failure of WP:NF. The existence of the 9 minute film, apparently made with a digi-corder owned by one of the yougsters, is verifiable in that the film itself can be viewed on YouTube. Creating one's own Wikia film page does not show any notability. That said, the film itself is what might be expected from a group of youngsters with too much time on their hands. And fails the applicable notability guideline by having no reliable sources discussing it in any manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete—non-notable amateur project, WP:SNOW, no sources anywhere, etc. ad infinitum. The odd name, however, did make it quite easy to quickly search for sources nonetheless. CtP (t • c) 17:52, 28 July 2013 (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.