Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eye For 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   delete. The rough consensus indicates that the new sources provided are insufficient to show notability here. --MuZemike 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Eye For Film

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Mentions of this site in reliable sources are rare and even then the mentions are incredibly trivial. The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep - seeking more sources as we speak - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly invested in it staying or not, as I note it is borderline, and if it's deleted I expect it would be without prejudice as its notability is pretty clearly on a slow upward slope. But I think its presence is unproblematic - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Do I need to explain the meaning of the word "trivial" to anyone? Some of the mentions being added to the article are literally just links to the site that don't even mention the site by name. Wikipedia is not free advertising space.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More added since this comment - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * New sources, same poor quality.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete: Small mentions in articles about different topics do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2012 (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.