The result was keep. Big Bird seems to have the most fleshed-out policy based argument that addresses the sources found. NW ( Talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability all the way around. The film was made by a non-notable director, distributed by a non-notable company and has no notable stars. A lack of media coverage by reliable sources. No gnews hits came back for it. One entry in the article from a weekly newspaper seems to be about it and that article isn't about this film alone, it's about films on a particular subject. Most ghits come back with either places to buy it, non-reliable sources or Wikipedia/mirrors. Article doesn't really even assert notability, aside from the fact that the film exists and was mentioned in an article. All in all, this film appears to fail WP:FILMNOT. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Theres more media appearances here. Click on "media". Portillo ( talk) 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Big Bird seems to have the most fleshed-out policy based argument that addresses the sources found. NW ( Talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Lack of notability all the way around. The film was made by a non-notable director, distributed by a non-notable company and has no notable stars. A lack of media coverage by reliable sources. No gnews hits came back for it. One entry in the article from a weekly newspaper seems to be about it and that article isn't about this film alone, it's about films on a particular subject. Most ghits come back with either places to buy it, non-reliable sources or Wikipedia/mirrors. Article doesn't really even assert notability, aside from the fact that the film exists and was mentioned in an article. All in all, this film appears to fail WP:FILMNOT. Niteshift36 ( talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep Theres more media appearances here. Click on "media". Portillo ( talk) 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply