The result was keep -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There are no secondary sources to establish notability. The only two that appear to be are both dead links and the only remaining citations are those generated by Wieber and his colleague, Michael Scott.
Nightscream (
talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Emmy links have been updated, but google should have been sufficient enough to support the article. -Miki
Search engines like Google are not reliable sources, as they are not publishers of material, but merely indicate frequency of search terms on websites. And if you mean that using Google would've turned out reliable sources, I tried using it before nominating the article, and couldn't find sources that I could discern as reliable, secondary ones. As for the Emmys, while I appreciate the fixing of those links, there are lots of winners of Creative Arts Emmys for special effects who presumably do not merit their own Wikipedia articles. Not everyone is Stan Winston. Nightscream ( talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The statement that there were no secondary sources referred to sources in the article, so it was not "false". It was true, as there were indeed none in the article when I listed the article for AfD.
There are now a number of reliable secondary sources in the article, and I'm satisfied that the criteria for WP:NOTE have been met.
Also, feature-length films are italicized, but short ones are not, they're quoted. This is true for full-length and short-form works in other media as well (Books and chapters, TV series and episodes, Books of poetry and individual poems, etc.).
Keep per above. Nightscream ( talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was keep -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There are no secondary sources to establish notability. The only two that appear to be are both dead links and the only remaining citations are those generated by Wieber and his colleague, Michael Scott.
Nightscream (
talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
reply
Emmy links have been updated, but google should have been sufficient enough to support the article. -Miki
Search engines like Google are not reliable sources, as they are not publishers of material, but merely indicate frequency of search terms on websites. And if you mean that using Google would've turned out reliable sources, I tried using it before nominating the article, and couldn't find sources that I could discern as reliable, secondary ones. As for the Emmys, while I appreciate the fixing of those links, there are lots of winners of Creative Arts Emmys for special effects who presumably do not merit their own Wikipedia articles. Not everyone is Stan Winston. Nightscream ( talk) 14:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The statement that there were no secondary sources referred to sources in the article, so it was not "false". It was true, as there were indeed none in the article when I listed the article for AfD.
There are now a number of reliable secondary sources in the article, and I'm satisfied that the criteria for WP:NOTE have been met.
Also, feature-length films are italicized, but short ones are not, they're quoted. This is true for full-length and short-form works in other media as well (Books and chapters, TV series and episodes, Books of poetry and individual poems, etc.).
Keep per above. Nightscream ( talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply