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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torn Between Two[edit]

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

Contested prod, reason was: Film with questionable notability with no sources to be found anywhere that also sounds like a advertisement Wgolf (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in lookig

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NFF and being WAY TOO SOON. Heck, the article itself tells us it is about an "upcoming" film abd the"information is subject to change as the film is still under review and development", so at kindest we can with until (or if) it gets filmed and released and IF it gets coverage the topic can be re-visited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've pursued the PROD if not for the removal, nothing convincing at all as there's nothing confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 18 May 2016 (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.