Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill phil


 * 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. -Docg 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill phil

 * — (View AfD)

These films are not notable as they have no sources indicating notability. The only results on Google were unrelated to this subject. I am also nominating the following related article because it is a similarly non-notable article about a sequel:

Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete only source in the article is a snippet of a quote from the "Elizabeth College newsletter". That's about as non-notable as it gets, folks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In terms of youtube.com's weaks number of views and the lack of internet meme phenomenon normally associated to youtube videos and other media. It is non-notable.--Janarius 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I kind of feel sorry for all these kids who put so much in-depth detail into their articles about their Youtube movies, only to have them be deleted time and again. I wish there was some way we could go back and warn them not to waste their time.  Alas, here we go again. Wavy G 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly an hoax. The film budgets are impressive, especially without leaving traces on the net! Phil should be uppercase! --Cate |Talk 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 12:37, 5 January 2007 (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.