Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 August 8
2009 August 10 >

9 August 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Possessions (film 2009) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article meets the notability criteria and shuold not be deleted. I being a new page patroller checked the sources and found them to be reliable. However, a user placed an afd tag on the article. Please review the article and check whether it qualifies for deletion. Nefirious (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close it hasn't been deleted yet, so there is nothing to review. You should just comment in the AFD as the correct venue to decide if the notability criteria are met. It sounds like you need to brush up on what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes notability (more specifically for future films WP:NFF). The article as it stands has two sources IMDB and Fluge, the latter is a user editable resource, so I can go there now and type in any old crap - it isn't reliable. IMDB is reliable for some information (and other stuff is again user contributed so again me their adding any old garbage) but generally only as a directory listing which isn't sufficient for establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Resources point 1 is specifically about IMDB --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actors, the people behind the film seem to be authentic. The film seems to be in Post Production. I am a member of Wikipedia:Films and henceforth its my duty to see that the right kind of stuff is put up. Atleast, the article does not qualify for deletion. It may require a bit of polishing though, the guy who created the article needs to be informed. Nefirious (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in posting here, it's been closed. Why don't you comment on the AFD itself? I'll also note your comment "film seem to be authentic", "film seems to be in post production". Notabilty is not the same as existance, and wikipedia doesn't deal with "seems" it deals with verifiable fact from reliable sources --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shona Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was complete consensus on the fact the article should not be under Shona Holmes and either should be renamed or merged. We didn't even get to decide where because the closing administrator closed it before we could even argue to where we should put it. I support merging it with Health care reform in the United States and deleting the article others have the idea, but haven't said where to put it. They are was another user saying to rename it Holmes-advertisement controversy. The only real person saying to keep it as it is was User:Geo Swan (the creator of the article). We needed more time to discuss it and the discussion was clearly not done, yet the administrator closed it. PS I've emailed the admin, but haven't gotten a response. I believe this user is taking a break because of the message on his user page, so I'm going ahead and doing this.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging or moving are editorial decisions and require no administrative intervention. So just start a discussion on merging or renaming on the articles talk page, once consensus is reached the relevant editiorial action can be done. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were keeps from 69.134.163.9 and User:BalthCat. Not too many merges, not too many deletes. No consensus seems reasonable, and as 82.7.40.7 says, merge debates should take place on talk pages. This isn't really a matter for Deletion Review.John Z (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see substantial opposition to a standalone article (deletes and merges together), but no consensus to delete is correct, and non-specific no consensus is within admin discretion. WP:N3D may be useful reading. The questions of whether to merge or rename and where should be resolved before acting. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i think that the page should be deleted because their ain't that much information to make a full article and the movie was never made i want it to be deleted i serched not that much inforation to come to a full article i don't think a full article will help who agrees with me that i should'nt have a full page i would have liked to see it but it never happened so it does not disurve a full page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverbeatme!! (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_9&oldid=1039523062"