Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History Videos (2nd 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Videos

History Videos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete non-notable series of amateur videos. Unreferenced Mayalld 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: unreferenced, non-notable, looks like it was made up in school one day. or possible over a number of days, to be fair. still non-notable tho. tomasz. 12:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons as tomasz. above. --DAJF 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. G4 and A7 (web). Maybe even salt. I can't tell, obviously, whether it's a copy of the originally deleted page as I am not an admin, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of inclusion anyway.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and Salt it this time. Typical kids-playing-with-a-camcorder article, already deleted once through AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Although interestingly, the last AfD was over two years ago - which is a long period of time in Wikipedia terms.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Correct, although the current version does nothing to address the issues for which it was deleted (notability and verfiability). I'm not a big fan of rerunning AfDs simply because we can. Besides, our inclusion standards have tightened up considerably since then, so extremely few things deletable by our 2005 stardards would be keepable today. If anything, the fact that nothing significantly new has happened in the previous two years suggests our decision then was spot-on: that this is unverifiable, unreferencable, utterly non-notable and completely unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was sorely tempted to speedy as a G4, but suspected that it would keep getting recreated and that somebody would cry foul for relying on an old AfD, etc. etc. Mayalld 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; my frustration when reading this article is that it should say up front who these people are and where the videos have been displayed. For example, House (TV series) makes it clear up front that it's an American TV series created by David Shore, debuting on FOX Network and winning the Emmy and Peabody awards. If this article were to say that they had played on BBC 2 (or whatever TV channel or conference or film festival) and won some sort of award, no matter how minor, then at least those would be some sort of claim of notability. Right now, I don't know that the films have ever been shown at any place that has any sort of standards beyond "it's not porn".--Prosfilaes 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, rereading the article, I did notice that it claimed that it was released on a DVD box-set. That could be something, if it wasn't self-published.--Prosfilaes 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well how about just snowball delete?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:25, 3 December 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.