Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olicamera


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Olicamera

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a 20 minute long, non-notable future YouTube film. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 12:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fai  zan  19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Director:
 * Writer:
 * Actor:
 * Studio:
 * WP:INDAFD: Olicamera Hazeeb C H Abdul Majid Amal Prasi Thattikkoottu Productions


 * Delete for currently completed unreleased film failing WP:NFF for lacking coverage in reliable sources. To be clear, my delete is not based upon the inapplicable complaints about length or distributor. Length is not a concern for film notability, as many short films have been found notable. And being distributed though YouTube is also not a deletion criteria, as some films released that way have indeed been the recipient of coverage to meet WP:NF. The only valid issue in the nominator's statement is the lack of coverage. Allow undeletion or recreation after release and only if it gains coverage.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To help clarify: The first sentence describes the article and the subject. The second sentence give the rationale for deletion.- MrX 01:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that meager description might serve editors unwilling to click the link to see the article for themselves. My own "clarification" addresses a nom statement appearing to use length and distributor as part of the deletion rationale, when they are irrelevant. Lack of coverage is the sole valid reason.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination and comments from should be considered.  C ute st Penguin '''  {talk • contribs} 16:01, 27 July 2014 (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.