Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Part
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Part (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notability asserted; possible COI. Wikipedia is not the IMDb, nor a promotional vehicle. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- David Sowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nicholas Zebrun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Related templates for deletion:
- Template:David Sowden Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Nicholas Zebrun Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all three articles and both (prematutre) templates. In agreement with the nom, article Nicholas Zebrun has only the article in the Fort Worth Weekly as a nice start, but I can find nothing else that shows notability. Article Dave Snowden has a slightly greater coverage than does his contemporary, but not by much. There's Forth Worth Weekly #1 and Forth Worth Weekly #2. The article for A Part is darn near impossible to source due to the name itself. The article is itself unsourced and I can find no combination of search parameters that help. And the 2 templates might be fine in some 10 years when these filmmakers have dozens of notable films to their credit... but not just yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Not much to add to MichaelQSchmidt's analysis. Negligible third-party coverage to verify any information. LeaveSleaves 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.