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. Kurykh 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Amateur movie, no claim of notability. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film is not an amateur movie with no claim of notability... can we get a clear indication of what needs to be added or removed to fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjerry (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! the creator of the article who has done nothing else on Wikipedia other than work on this article wants to Keep this article. I am aghast! Clearly User:Mynameisjerry has big conflict of interest and ownership issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review, I would say my nomination rationale is wrong, but the article is still not worth keeping. Since the movie is in pre-production, and there are no big names involved, you should wait until it gets released before creating an article on it. Right now, the sources do not fit the guidelines for verifiability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crystal-ballism. The article describes a product that may exist in the future. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a professional independent film with professional actors. All major roles have been cast. Cmwinters (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2008 (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.