Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film Annex


 * 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 redirect to Francesco Rulli.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Film Annex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With reference to User talk:GB fan, added this page for deletion discussion based on WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11.

Page was initially listed for speedy, based on A7 and G11, but denied; as to stop a speedy deletion all it takes is a claim of significance. Claim of significance made by User:WestEndKat remains questionable - if sock or not, TBD by wiki security, refer to log: (Film Annex: Revision history) - appears to be inactive user now.

Be that as it may, the point here is that the article in question, is in essence, promotional, and as such a violation of guidelines, rules and policy. The Initial Claim is unsubstantiated, it is promotional and self-promotional by proxy (using notability circumvention)

Here is why:

Quote: "page should not be speedily deleted because... the Women's Annex Channel is very important..."

1) the Women's Annex Channel IS NOT Film Annex. Thus, question remains, why Film Annex should remain as article entry?

2) Notability (or the lack thereof) is verifiable. Looking at the references (1. through 19.) none of them are actual news coverage from economist, bloomberg, or any other independent, or verifiable source. References 20 through 22 are blatantly self-promotional.

3) Section "Notable Channels" refers to an individual, Roya Mahboob, who has a channel on Filmannex, as do others have channels on Youtube, Vimeo, or anywhere else. Section "Philantropy" is not referenced, and thus NOT verified by any other outside independent source. This is questionable practice, at the very least.

4) Fact is: Here is a private entity, i.e. filmannex.com, allowed having an article on WP, which violates basic WP guidelines, rules and WP credibility.

Based on 1)-4) the question arises: is this attempting to circumvent WP:N Notability? If so, the article should be deleted. Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nom completed on behalf of author. I have no input (just yet). czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of notability per WP:WEB. In Google Books and Google News, I did not find mention of Film Annex combined with the founder's name except for a MarketWatch article in which he was apparently quoted. Please note that the article uses solely primary sources. Even the Yahoo! News link is just a press release. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with MQS below that a redirect is proper. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film_Annex - The page is now consistent with Vimeo's Wiki page. Messin33 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lacking independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP, this topic does not merit a separate article. But as it's existence is verifiable, we can serve the readers by a REDIRECT to its founder Francesco Rulli. Any verifiable content can then be included therein.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - A search at Bing clearly brings up recent news from 10,000 Balloons - http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=film+annex&go=&qs=bs&form=QBNT Using Google as a marker for YouTube competitors would fit this Criticism of Google - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestEndKat (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * , "10,000 balloons" "film annex" in Bing shows results from websites related to this platform. The top result is this, which has "filmannex" in the URL. Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per mqs. may 11, 2013 §: 35mexico58 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I updated the Notable Channels content on the Film Annex page and left my comments here:


 * Keep - Roya Mahboob's connection with the site brings up Film Annex in the top results when searching for Roya Mahboob and her early commercial connections with internet classrooms, separate from Women's Annex Project. Recommend wikipedia page be improved, cleaned up, and promotional material removed. Rand49503 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: and  have only mainly edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Global Medical Relief Fund as seen here. Neither of them have adequately responded to this topic's issues with notability. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with Erik: Neither Messin3 nor Rand49503 nor WestEndKat have added or addressed anything as for coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Based on this and looking at the 'Keep' votes, it appears there is either vote stacking, sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) in play here (check & cross-reference history from main page and AfD history), % Thus: Erik, could you plese notify Wiki security about this? Based on this: tendency to Strong Delete than Redirect.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not need to pursue any security measures; the closing admin can assess these comments and recognize these accounts as single-purpose. AfD is not a voting process, the outcome depends on arguments based on policies and guidelines and related evidence. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know internet slang but "meat puppet" sounds like my husband is mad at me :) I met Film Annex and Roya Mahboob through my friends at Global Medical Relief Fund on Staten Island. Maybe supporting the women of Afghanistan is not "Notable" here on Wiki, but it certainly is on Staten Island. I will bow out here after this post but maybe people should look at what is going on in Afghanistan. Positive stories are few and far between in Afghanistan. If that is not "Notable", please explain to Wiki readers what is? WestEndKat (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In reference to Erik's comment, my account was started as part of a project for my BUS 256 class in Business Ethics, as part of a section we are doing on the involvement of businesses in non-profit organizations. Unfortunately, I haven't been the most consistent editor, but my comment from this morning was just trying to say that many non-profit organizations start from business investments (which are motivated by the govt's and that not acknowledging that wouldn't clearly explain the history of the projects mentioned in this page. What I can agree with, is that maybe this article does not meet wikipedia's notability and objectivity guidelines in its current form, but my counter to that is that if you consider the history of Ms. Mahboob's projects, you would have to mention this company, either in an article or a sentence integrated into another article, as part of the process that contributed to this charity being formed.


 * 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.