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. Big Dom 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo (film)

[edit]

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

Article about a supposedly future film that never seems to have gotten off the ground. Article should never have been created in the first place as it fails WP:NFF. A good example of why WP:NFF exists. Rob Sinden (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films as a project with no traction; likely not in active development. Looks like the project was announced as early as October 2008, yet this article from June 2011 talking about Soderbergh's five remaining projects before he retires does not even include Cleo. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Films can be in "development Hell" for years or decades. Thank heavens that NFF exists. I hadn't come across it before but this article certainly meets its definitions. If the project ever does get off the ground then the article can be recreated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- FunkyDuffy (talk) 15:24, 6 July 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.