Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Warning (film): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Slycooper100 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
*'''Speedy Delete''' - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nathan Orth|Nathan Orth]] ([[User talk:Nathan Orth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nathan Orth|contribs]]) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Speedy Delete''' - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nathan Orth|Nathan Orth]] ([[User talk:Nathan Orth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nathan Orth|contribs]]) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film|list of Film-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small> |
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film|list of Film-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Keep'''. G-man's [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and [[WP:NPOV|POV]] have been removed. Have been doing clean-up on the article, and found some decent sources and both positive and negative reviews. Did use the "G-Man" review, but made sure to state it as a blog. Will remove it as I find more. Will continue working on the article... as it now tickles the requirements of [[WP:NF]] and I have more to add. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. G-man's [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and [[WP:NPOV|POV]] have been removed. Have been doing clean-up on the article, and found some decent sources and both positive and negative reviews. Did use the "G-Man" review, but made sure to state it as a blog. Will remove it as I find more. Will continue working on the article... as it now tickles the requirements of [[WP:NF]] and I have more to add.I am also a major league cock fag! '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Update''' I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets [[WP:NF]]. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
:*'''Update''' I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets [[WP:NF]]. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<b><sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup></b>]]'' 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
* '''Keep''' Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. [[Special:Contributions/67.83.85.236|67.83.85.236]] ([[User talk:67.83.85.236|talk]]) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
* '''Keep''' Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. [[Special:Contributions/67.83.85.236|67.83.85.236]] ([[User talk:67.83.85.236|talk]]) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 16:32, 13 January 2009
Fog Warning (film)
- Fog Warning (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - The article seems to mainly cover g-man's review of the film and most of the edits on the page were done by someone with a similar name. The film is not notable and article would need to be rewritten if the film became notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. G-man's conflict of interest and POV have been removed. Have been doing clean-up on the article, and found some decent sources and both positive and negative reviews. Did use the "G-Man" review, but made sure to state it as a blog. Will remove it as I find more. Will continue working on the article... as it now tickles the requirements of WP:NF and I have more to add.I am also a major league cock fag! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Update I have just completed initial expansion and sourcing to show significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject.... for an Indy, it gets as much love as hate. Still needs categories, but it now meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Any indy film will have fewer references than a major blockbuster, but this appears to be a significant enough release to warrant an article. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)