- 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. Biblio worm 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Expendable (film)
- Expendable (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded and then restored on the basis of the single reference to Rowan's book. I note that Rowan's book is from Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform so whether it is a reliable source is questionable. Otherwise the source only provides a plot summary and a brief unexplained "the film met much public controversy" statement. This a short 7 minute independent film with no real evidence that it passes WP:MOVIE. Ricky81682 ( talk) 11:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alts:
- year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- original title:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- co-director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- co-director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- production co.:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete for failure to meet WP:NF. It can apparently be watched but has made no splash at all. Lacking any sort of independent critical response or coverage, notability is failed. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Really non-notable, apparently a student film. Unlike most articles of this type, though, it doesn't even really try to assert notability, with the closest attempt being the rather bizarre statement that "some believe it rivals the vast majority of films made by students with similar breadths of experience," which I assume actually means they didn't fail the assignment. Even the director quote can't manage more than "pretty decent", which is faint praise indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Biblio worm 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Expendable (film)
- Expendable (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded and then restored on the basis of the single reference to Rowan's book. I note that Rowan's book is from Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform so whether it is a reliable source is questionable. Otherwise the source only provides a plot summary and a brief unexplained "the film met much public controversy" statement. This a short 7 minute independent film with no real evidence that it passes WP:MOVIE. Ricky81682 ( talk) 11:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alts:
- year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- original title:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- co-director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- co-director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- production co.:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete for failure to meet WP:NF. It can apparently be watched but has made no splash at all. Lacking any sort of independent critical response or coverage, notability is failed. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Really non-notable, apparently a student film. Unlike most articles of this type, though, it doesn't even really try to assert notability, with the closest attempt being the rather bizarre statement that "some believe it rivals the vast majority of films made by students with similar breadths of experience," which I assume actually means they didn't fail the assignment. Even the director quote can't manage more than "pretty decent", which is faint praise indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.