| Revision as of 06:29, 13 January 2008 editRigadoun (talk | contribs)Administrators35,306 editsm fix spacing← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:30, 13 January 2008 edit undoRigadoun (talk | contribs)Administrators35,306 editsm having a hard time hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :{{la|Omovies}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Omovies}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| This is a ] ] 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | This is a ] ] 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | Sorry, reason |
||
| ⚫ | Sorry, reason somehow didn't appear. This was created by a user and socks who has since been blocked (see ]). The user has also wrote articles for the two filmmakers and one of the films (all deleted via PROD). It was an expired prod but the prod had been objected to (by a sock, but before any sock case). There are many references but they are either trivial or not reliable/independent. ] ] 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' this is a well-developed article and is quite famous in its locality. It is more qualified to stay on wikipedia than ] --] (]) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **They seem similar, but the references for Smosh are far more compelling. ] ] 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | **They seem similar, but the references for Smosh are far more compelling. ] ] 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Article appears to be well-sourced, and no argument has been provided for its deletion. --]|] 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Article appears to be well-sourced, and no argument has been provided for its deletion. --]|] 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:30, 13 January 2008
Omovies
This is a Rigadoun (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, reason somehow didn't appear. This was created by a user and socks who has since been blocked (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.L.King). The user has also wrote articles for the two filmmakers and one of the films (all deleted via PROD). It was an expired prod but the prod had been objected to (by a sock, but before any sock case). There are many references but they are either trivial or not reliable/independent. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this is a well-developed article and is quite famous in its locality. It is more qualified to stay on wikipedia than smosh --Niyant (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- They seem similar, but the references for Smosh are far more compelling. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Article appears to be well-sourced, and no argument has been provided for its deletion. --Goobergunch|? 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, reason has been given. Rigadoun (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep mention in the NY Post in addition to other web references establishes notability; no reason stated for deletion. — BQZip01 — 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)