Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wavescorx Independent

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 of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wavescorx Independent

Also:

• Travis Wavescorx and its redirect, Travis Lou Wavescorx,
• Tim Fahey, and
• Astertone.

Nn vanispam. Just the word Wavescorx alone only garners 167 non-wikipedia hits. "Wavescorx Independent" gets two. The company was founded a couple of years ago - the film hasn't been released, it's the actor's first role... These articles form a nice little walled gareden of articles - the WI one is the only one which links elsewhere (again thanks to the same editor, who added it to List of animation studios). Spam or vanity, you take your pick. Grutness...wha? 03:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, spam, vanispam, spamanity, etc. — AKADriver ☎ 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, vanityspam. - Richardcavell 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article about one unreleased animation yet to show at festivals - non-notable vanity article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I respectfully disagree. The information is completely valid and is note-worthy. Little is known about the film because of the studio's secrecy of the project. I have seen the film and it is wonderful. Because it is the studio's first, makes it all the more remarkable - - if only Pixar and Aardman's first films were so entertaining! I recently interviewed the guys at Wavescorx Independent for an up-coming article (printing to coincide with the release of the film) and I am the author of these articles. Please reconsider. Commodius Vicus

I acknowledge what you're saying, but doesn't that make it original research? - Richardcavell 09:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• • If little is known about the film, due to studio secrecy or not, then it's ... (wait for it) ... non-notable. Feel free to rewrite the article if that changes. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per AKADriver (bwahaha). -- Kicking222 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Animated shorts are very, very rarely notable after they've been released, since there's practically no distribution for them. Certainly not notable before its release. Fan1967 14:51, 26 April 2006 (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.