Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Day

: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. Flowerparty☀ 23:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Her Day]]=

:{{la|Her Day}} ([{{fullurl:Her Day|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Her Day}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable film. For example, I can't find anything for either the title or the star on IMDb. Lugnuts (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - the film isn't even in [http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=her+day&x=0&y=0 IMDB]. WP:NFILM requires coverage in reliable sources other than comprehensive databases, and this film doesn't even seem to have that. The article does claim that the film won a "Herb Gold Award", but a [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA226CA230&q=%22herb+gold+award%22&btnG=Search&cts=1245678324654&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Google search] for "Herb Gold Award" returns only two results, this page and a Wikipedia mirror, so we can safely say that it isn't a major award, if it exists at all. The page clearly fails WP:NFILM and WP:V, and might even be a hoax, since no evidence can be found that the film or the award it supposedly won exist.--Unscented (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total lack of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like a hoax. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. "Seems" like a hoax? I can't even find "Her Day" and Georgia Matthews in the same context. This film does not exist. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • COMMENT A bit difficult to determine now if hoax or not, as the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Her_Day&action=edit&redlink=1 has already been deleted] before this AfD had run its course. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, even though it doesn't matter now, what it all boils down to is, Google had no hits on anything titled Her Day, much less the supposed star of the film, Georgia Matthews. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Thank you. With those clues I found a google-cached version of the deleted page [http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GopRmxJH6YAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Day+%22Georgia+Matthews%22,+%22Her+Day%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]. Seeing now what was asserted and in making my own searches, I agree that a delete will be the best option... but AFTER the AfD has run its course. I am uncomfortably worried at a precedent being set by its deletion before results of an AfD had made this the decision. I'd hate such pre-emptive action to become policy-by-default. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All that really happened here is that the admin that deleted the article neglected to archive this debate. (That's been happening a lot lately, now that I think about it...) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies to one and all for deleting this article as a {{tl|speedy}}, which in my view it clearly deserves. I have restored it by request, as there is no reason not to, but I would like to stipulate that if an obviously speediable article , tagged both for speedy and AfD, exists, an admin is well within his/her competence to delete it without waiting for AfD consensus; given that we can always be required to justify our actions. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I was myself under an impression (WP:NOTCSD) that film articles were not generally speediable and are to be sent to AfD. I do agree that ultimate deletion as the result of AfD will best serve Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as original prodder for the very same reason, unverifiable. While this looked very much like a hoax, I was reluctant to tag it for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. However, an argument could be made that the hoax was blatant enough to fit the criteria, and clearly, both COMPFUNK2 and Anthony felt that this was the case. As Anthony points out, the article may be speedily deleted if it is determined to meet one of the criteria, regardless of an ongoing deletion discussion. decltype (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I will, however, leave it for the duration of the AfD to avoid appearing dogmatic or biased. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've just declined a speedy on this, lets let this AfD run its course for now. Ta. GedUK  20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken that was just a tagging that was left on the article after it had been restored (The article was speedily deleted earlier during this AfD and restored on request). decltype (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this survived for over two months?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:48, 27 June 2009 (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.