Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tastic Film

: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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

=[[Tastic Film]]=

:{{la|Tastic Film}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tastic_Film Stats])

:({{Find sources|Tastic Film}})

This appears to have escaped into the wild before it was ready. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tastic Film where it was marked as not ready. Seems non notable. No reliable references. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • There are reliable resources provided as one of the resources is a government run website the other is IMDB who review and check all information submitted to their site also the article contains first hand information from James Rush the founder of the company for who i work. If these are not reliable sources let us know what you mean and we will add them but honestly i don't see how you get more reliable that a government run website. johnjjjames (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (GMT)

:*Comment: Several points:

::#That something exists does not make it notable. Companies House simply validates existence

::#IMDB is not a Reliable Source

::#This article was pasted into the main namespace after rejection at Articles for Creation

::#"We"? Wikipedia accounts are for one person only

::The contention that something is notable and verifiable is down to the editors asserting that it is. If you feel it is both ready to be out on its own and is notable, please assert it and verify it, otherwise it has no place here yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::*So firstly companies house validates it exists and therefore verified the pages name. I have just added another site which show details regarding it location and another on there own website which contains details regarding to Tastic Film's publication/ magazine. Also i created another article for review under the same name simply because the article had been updated and it was not being recognized after numerous days + the article has information provided from the very company in questions founder i really do not understand the problem here as all other wiki pages provide are mostly mixed up, promotional and opinionated news articles on random websites. If you would like I can email to you from my company email verifying that i am a staff member at Tastic Film. You can view the newly added References at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tastic_Film Tastic Film Wiki Article in Question] johnjjjames (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2013 (GMT)

:::*Comment the article at Articles for Creation is not being discussed for deletion. We are dscussiing the one you chose to put into man namespace before it was ready. The simplest thing you can do is to ask for the main namespace one to be deleted yourself, as author, and work on the Articles for Creation version. Take the advice of those who review it there. The article in main namespace asserts no notability and has no place in main namespace. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

::::*I have left a detailed explanation on your talk page. I hope that will resolve your confusion. The main namespace page needs to be deleted without prejudice to a later recreation form the AFC article. You will need the aid of an administrator. I have explained all this for you there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to merge the two articles from the user page and the "wild" I do not really understand how there ended up being two in different places. Also when you say not yet ready just wondering what you mean ? Also I was wondering if there was any way i can delete the user page for Tastic Film and keep the main page as it has really got the Tastic Film logo listed highly on search engines. please get back to me and thanks for the help you have been. James Rush 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

:I will reply on your talk page here it is a shame that you deleted my advice. This deletion discussion must run its course. Wikipedia does not care about your logo and search engines. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • [https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&tbo=d&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=%22tastic+film%22&oq=%22tastic+film%22&gs_l=serp.3...857327.859330.0.859663.2.2.0.0.0.0.393.563.0j1j0j1.2.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.LmySjgRaaEo This search] shows that Tastic Film has no coverage that Google can find in mainstream media. Accordingly I have flagged the article for speedy deletion, which is being contested currently. According to the contest note an artcile is likey to appear in some days about Tastic Film, but I can;t see how that will propel it to notability. We need to clear the main namespace article out and encourage the oroginator, whose company it is, to work on the AFC namespace article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. First person sourcing and IMDB are not acceptable. Little or no apparent reliable sources to support notability. Speedy was an appropriate course of action, contested by a WP:COI account. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have read through everything related to this and in my opinion it is in the matter of publi interest even if the sources are weak I believe this page should remain. (Nick Greenson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.75 (talk • contribs) — 82.132.245.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability appear. Hairhorn (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like a one-man band to me. Presumably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that johnjjjames as the main contributor and self identified owner of Tastic Films has been indefinitely blocked from En Wikipedia for making legal threats. {{IP|93.97.3.16}} has self identified on Commons as the same person and has made recent edts evading the block here (the user is not blocked there). I have reverted the edits here as vandalism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2013 (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.