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. Consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Shot (2010 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student Movie, not notable, was deleted before here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 film) CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I noted in the previous AFD, we can't have this article without some indication of notability, especially when it had yet to be released. Now that the film has actually been released, there is absolutely no indication that it is notable - no articles, no critical response, no nothing. The author indicates (on the article's talk page) that an IMDB listing is sufficient, but that's precisely incorrect - an IMDB listing doesn't confer notability, because IMDB is not itself a reliable source. This article differs enough from the deleted version so as to avoid a G4 Speedy Deletion, if you're wondering - but there is no notability to speak of. Indeed, I don't see a claim to notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Films are not speediable, but I do agree that it does not have the required notability and support deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Films are absolutely speediable, if this article were a duplicate of the one that was deleted at AFD. I believe the phrase from WP:CSD is "Substantially similar" or some such. In this case, though, there are enough differences to trump the G4 rule. You're right, though, that a film doesn't qualify for A7, which is the "credible claim of notability" rule. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have stated not "generally" speediable and clarified as to A7 in my statement. I was referring to your G4 only in reference to Ultraexactzz's earlier noting that content and assertion were "just" different enough. However, yes... this one is still WP:TOOSOON, so we are not in disagreement on that point. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the film's subsequent release prevents the prior AFD from controlling, there's simply no suggestion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (if ever). While happy to congratulate these high school filmmakers for their creative efforts, high school films by student filmmakers rarely achieve the coverage required to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 12 January 2011 (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.