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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trasharella[edit]

Trasharella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article lacks any secondary sources. There is no indication of notability. Looks to me to be just a self-produced film without any critiques or awards to its name. Dismas|^(talk) 07:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no widespread notability, Google mostly confined to blogs, no awards. JamesBurns (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there do not appear to be multiple non-trivial mentions in notable third party publications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rena Riffel is currently being speedied as an A7 so that suggests their work is not notbale. Looks like spam given there are external links to buy it.--DFS454 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep might be not very notable or prominent, but its director and cast are not red-links, suggests there are some prominent people involved in the film. Therefore, some better argument is required to show its deletable non-notability in Wikipedia. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (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.