Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls At The Cairo National Stadium (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium - SELF PROMOTION. Non-notable and unpopular 9 minutes long Internet video (never shown on TV/cinema/etc). Created by Nimrod Kamer, a user that was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia because of spamming (He wrote many article about himself/his friends and his films - such as this film). This user has some sock poppets. The article about this 'film' creator was deleted.

To prove my point:

--Plantended (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 308 results in Google in English (much of them are from Wikipedia and it's mirrors)
 * Only 75 results in Google in Hebrew
 * Comment Is Google the official measure of notability? « PuTTY Sch OOL 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sock puppetry of Marina T. was never properly proven. That account was blocked for uploading many images without proper licensing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete --Plantended (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. Broccoli (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete self promotion of something that mainly exists on Kamer's hard disk. Ori Redler (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above. Qwerty1234 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep on procedural grounds only. I'm sorry, I'm biased against repeated nominations in a short period of time. I could see if there had been no consensus previously, but the prior Afd closed a bit over two weeks ago as a clean keep with no delete !votes. I don't see where the status of the creator matters if the article otherwise meets the policies (I could just as easily, and with the same relevance, call the nom an SPA). I will say that I personally don't see the notability of this film/article, but I am most concerned with preventing gaming of the system. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reading that back, it sounds as if I'm accusing the nom of bad faith. I am not, I have no reason to think this isn't a perfectly good faith nomination; I just think it's premature given the recent AfD. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, I come from Israel and Hebrew is my first language. I can say without any doubt that this movie isn't notable by any reasonable standard. There are a lot of movies like this, most of them aren't considered to be of vital importance. Plus, I see no reason to support the keeping of the article based on past events. If I decide to have my say at an AFD I say it according to the article itself. I don't think that other things should be regarded. Broccoli (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per above. Paranoid7 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - nothing changed since the previous AfD: the article cites reasonable external sources, but in my opinion the notability is pretty weak. Please, re-read Notability - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Personally i think that this is a non-important home video, and it is possible that the article was written as self-promotion, but objectively and procedurally it is notable, as it does cite a couple of reasonable sources. So, if it's deleted it is not a big loss of content for Wikipedia, but such repeated nominations are a bit disruptive. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Amir, I disagree. This movie gets a very low number of Google hits. True, it is mentioned in a few reliable sources, but the same can be said about a lot of non-notable movies. I tried as hard as I could to find anything notable about this movie. I'm sorry to say that I failed miserably. Broccoli (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Search engine test: "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability".
 * The article cites dailystaregypt.com and sports.walla.co.il, and these are reasonable external sources. Fair's fair - notability is not a matter of opinion or taste, but a matter of sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now i noticed that the article at walla.co.il was written by Kamer himself, so it is not exactly external. But there's still the Egyptian article. I don't really like this article, but "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason for deletion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you base the notability of this movie on one article in a newspaper? That's not a good sign to notability in my opinion. Newspapers write about a lot of things, many of them aren't notable or encyclopedic. Broccoli (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly - that's why i say "weak". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. I'm new with all this policies. Broccoli (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - the English WP defines very generic, reasonable and fair rules for notability, that can be applied to pretty much any subject. It's not that complicated, actually.
 * I deleted a lot of Kamer-related cruft half a year ago in English, French, Italian and Slovenian Wikipedias, but some of this stuff does not obviously contradict policy.
 * You can rest assured that i won't be too sad if this article is deleted, but it should be fairly discussed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong speedy delete per nom. --NZQRC (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - how did this take three afds? --T-rex 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there is no obvious violation of notability policy here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT. Definitely fails WP:N. If this were a "cultural phenomenon" as proferred, wouldn't there be some other sources somewhere??? Now in it's 3rd AfD, the article still does not pass WP:N or WP:NF... and am I not alone in thinking for a major contributor (and his socks) to be adding an article about his own video, and then sourcing it back to his articles and his blogs is a major violation of WP:COI? The only possible source that (barely) squeeks past WP:RS is the article in the Daily Star... but even then, it quotes Kamer's own words, reports Kamer made a video, repeats Kamer's opinions, and reports the opinions of three persons other than Kamer. Hardly a "cultural phenomenon", and hardly notable. If it were, there would a lot more coverage other than his own. With similar points brought up at the first 2 AfD's, you'd think this would have been addressed. I was one who voted keep in the 2nd AfD, but with the article not being better sourced in the last 4 weeks, with the continued WP:COI violations, I have now changed my opinion  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep on the grounds that this passed AFD with a keep decision LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated until a desired outcome is reached, otherwise that's gaming the system and destroys the viability of the AFD process. This is a procedural opinion. The admin who makes the decision on this AFD must think very carefully about the precedent that could be set; if nothing else, it will trigger an immediate deletion review which may well be overturned. If there are accusations of COI and all that, where were these opinions two weeks ago? 23skidoo (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Struck my salt. I voted to keep at the 2nd AfD. Links shared at this AfD showed me the specific problem with the WP:COI. Was hoping to see the artcle improved per WP:NPOV. It has not been. How much time does the author need?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Let's make this simpler: 1), the article states "The video's goal as stated by Kamer is to document a cultural phenomenon and the general atmosphere of the match." It is agreed that Kamer made this statement, but just what is this "cultural phenomenom" of which he speaks? What makes the "atmosphere of the match" any more important than any match elsewhere? 2), the article next states "Its main focus is on the Egyptian girls who attended the game, setting a record-high number of Egyptian women in a single football match...". The statement has no WP:RS to support it. Where is WP:V that this was "record-high' attendence by Egyptian women, beyond his simply saying so? Since the first 2 AfD's seemed to be about the author and not the article, I decided to look deeper at the article. Past it failing WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and past it being written by someone who was later indef-blocked for puppetry, the film simply fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sock puppetry of Marina T. was never properly proven. That account was blocked for uploading many images without proper licensing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? Not being a checkuser, I go by what I read. Marina T. was previously twice temp-blocked for repeated probems with images, and subsequently IS indef-blocked and tagged for "suspected abuse of multiple accounts". That aside, and not dwelling on the article's major problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COI... as outlined above, the article has not proven any of its claims and fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an oft-repeated rumor among Israeli Wikipedians that Marina T. and Shmila are socks of Nimrod Kamer (Nnimrodd), but technically it was never proved by checkuser, as they always cleverly retreated before making enough damage to justify checkuser. Marina T.'s user talk page is tagged as "suspected abuse of multiple accounts" - suspected, not proved. It is tagged like this since today, probably because of these discussions.
 * So ignore the tag. The tag is not what makes the article non-notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article in the Egyptian website is critical of this film, which certainly makes it a non-trivial and external source, but except that it is indeed pretty non-notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the 2 and a half years since this home video clip was created and promoted all over the net by Kamer, it generated only one article.... an article that simply repeats the information as presented by Kamer. It proves the clip exists.... and that is not in contention. It does not address any of the assertions of notability made in the article. In case you missed it above, I will repeat it: 1), the article states "The video's goal as stated by Kamer is to document a cultural phenomenon and the general atmosphere of the match." What is this "cultural phenomenom" of which Kamer speaks? What makes the "atmosphere of the match" any more important than any match elsewhere? 2), the article states "Its main focus is on the Egyptian girls who attended the game, setting a record-high number of Egyptian women in a single football match...". The statement has no WP:RS to support it. Where is WP:V through WP:RS that this was "record-high' attendence by Egyptian women beyond Kamer's saying so? The film simply fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * About "Its main focus is on the Egyptian girls who attended the game, setting a record-high number of Egyptian women in a single football match..." In Egypt this is a common trend, especially when Egypt team is playing. May be he found them beautiful, so he focus on them and forgot about the match! « PuTTY Sch OOL 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - one can hardly claim in favor of this article. ירון (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an advertising tool for self promotion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Q? Please if anyone have enough time, can (S)He show us why to keep it? « PuTTY Sch OOL 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - per nom. THFFF (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a purely promotional article sitting on the wiki for two years with little or no secondary sources has got to be about as NN as it gets.--Bsnowball (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: I'm not going to change my vote, but what happened to Plantended/User talk:Plantended? He now non-existant?  23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, and as much as I feel this article fails WP:NF, WP:GNG, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV, I am uneasy that the Plantended account was created on August 23, took immediate interest in this article, and then seemed to disappear. Again, and though I agree that this article should go, it seems to have been nominated by an account created for just that one purpose... and not an acccount of a newbie, as new users rarely have the knowledge of Wiki as shown by this "NEW" account. This makes me nervous and I feel I must suggest an investigation, before it is deleted. Darn.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck my nervous maunderings, as a knowledgable editor informed me that this account could certainly have been created for this one reason, but that the reason for its creation may have to do with the editor wishing an anonymity in his/her nomination and not wishing to offend others who may know him/her on Wiki or in the real world. Makes sense.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:53, 1 September 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.