Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kermode uncut

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. ÷seresin 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kermode uncut

Video blog of subject, Mark Kermode, nothing here that cant be covered fully in the main article, although there is nothing really to note other than its existence, which the main article already does, so it doesnt need merging. dont see why its been forked? there are no references to indicate significant discussion about it from reliable 3rd parties, so dont think it satisfies WP:WEB? Catherine breillat (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Catherine breillat (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blog isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Boris Gunn Blog is UNIQUE and notable for that. 18:19, 13 June 2009 (GMT)
- NOTE: This user has been investigated and confirmed as a sockpuppeteer violating WP:STUFF in this AFD: see [1] (decision - user blocked) and [2] (case). Zzzzz (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable, independent, 3rd-party sources discussing this blog: the article can only use primary source material, it therefore it must be deleted per WP:WEB (also, the only assertion of notability in the article is unreferenced and dubious). Zzzzz (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Not convinced of motive for deletion request. Assertion that notability in the article is "dubious" is arbitrary and judgmental. Where is the argument that the blog is not unique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatisyourmalfunction (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This user has been investigated and confirmed as a sockpuppet violating WP:STUFF in this AFD: see [3] (decision - user blocked) and [4] (case). Zzzzz (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the blog ever achieves significance apart from being "Mark Kermode's blog", we can always bring it back then. We can merge current content into Mark Kermode, except that everything but the photograph is already there. Gaurav (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather depressing that a couple of tyro mistakes (i.e. not quite getting the sockpuppet thing or forgetting to add a signature) are leapt on and punished with such ferocity. It's not exactly encouraging for beginners. Perhaps there should be a special "Martinet" award for some of you guys. Anyway, question for Z. (May I call you Z? Zzzzz seems so formal don't you think?) After citations and references are asked for, at what point is it allowable for these to be included in an edit rather than simply deleted automatically because the well-meaning individual who submitted them has made the above errors? And if this is not the correct forum to discuss this, Z, then please let me know what is? In good faith. Boris Gunn

(By the way, does this count as a signature Boris Gunn?) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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.