Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omovies

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. WjBscribe 08:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omovies[edit]

Sorry, reason somehow didn't appear. This was created by a user and socks who has since been blocked (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.L.King). The user has also wrote articles for the two filmmakers and one of the films (all deleted via PROD). It was an expired prod but the prod had been objected to (by a sock, but before any sock case). There are many references but they are either trivial or not reliable/independent. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well-developed article and is quite famous in its locality. It is more qualified to stay on wikipedia than smosh --Niyant (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem similar, but the references for Smosh are far more compelling. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to be well-sourced, and no argument has been provided for its deletion. --Goobergunch|? 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, reason has been given. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - After closer examination, I'm withdrawing my keep vote. I'm no longer confident that WP:V is satisfied, although I'm not prepared to vote to delete. --Goobergunch|? 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mention in the NY Post in addition to other web references establishes notability; no reason stated for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were discussing Lindsay Fully Loaded and only mentioned Omovies as "omovies.com" and only in the context of their producing this movie. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional article written by a publicist. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs cited do not appear to constitute substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources and thus do not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Cumulus Clouds -RiverHockey (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (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.