Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 (Short Film)


 * 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   D e lete. Tiptoety talk 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

3 (Short Film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable amateur film Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-notable, probably Bioliving things.-- Free way  guy  23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP? Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be. Without source how we know it's factual. I thuhgt Bioliving things is like I write an article about my idols.-- Free way  guy  23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the BLP guide is a set of rules setting out how to deal with potentially libelous/dangerous content in articles about living people. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: maybe per WP:MADEUP. If it does exist, it's a non-notable amateur film. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Verifiability issues, along with original research. Probably could be a7 with no assertion of WP:N. XF Lawtalk at me 13:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Might exist, but if it does it's a non-notable amateur film that fails WP:MOVIE anyway. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all, mere existence is not enough. Lacks the verifiability needed through reliable third parties.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.