Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throw It Down

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. — Aitias // discussion 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Throw It Down[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't asserted much yourself. Nomination statements should state what the article is about and show that basic attempts to fix the issue failed or aren't possible. Can notability be asserted? Did you attempt to find sources? Just because it doesn't assert notability now, doesn't mean adding one sentence can't change things immediately. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:NF. I have just myself visited to article to remove WP:ADVERT, WP:COI, and WP:POV and to rewrite per film MOS. Searches for sources leads to mentions and writeups in blogs and websites not independent of the subject. Perhaps an earlier version might be userfied, but it just does not yet have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, much less WP:NF. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently doesn't pass WP:N in the slightest. I Googled and Googled (News/Books) and couldn't come up with anything substantial. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stepshep.--Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2009 (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.