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.
Fails
WP:NOTFILM. Most of the 'references' are either to user generated sites, or to sites that don't mention the movie. I can't find any third party references to this film.
Dbrodbeck (
talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, Has the same problems as the others. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG,
MarnetteD|
Talk 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I did find
this LA Times article from the 80s that refer to it going into production, but I can't find any actual reviews or anything else that would show that it passes NFILM. The article otherwise has the same issues as the other sock-created Chaney articles: it makes a lot of claims that cannot be backed up with reliable sources and given that some of the claims in other articles have been questioned as a hoax, I think that the safest thing here would be to delete this and turn it into a redirect (after the Chaney related issues are resolved as a whole) rather than just make it a redirect with history.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:23, 11 December 2015 (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.
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.
Fails
WP:NOTFILM. Most of the 'references' are either to user generated sites, or to sites that don't mention the movie. I can't find any third party references to this film.
Dbrodbeck (
talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, Has the same problems as the others. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG,
MarnetteD|
Talk 20:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I did find
this LA Times article from the 80s that refer to it going into production, but I can't find any actual reviews or anything else that would show that it passes NFILM. The article otherwise has the same issues as the other sock-created Chaney articles: it makes a lot of claims that cannot be backed up with reliable sources and given that some of the claims in other articles have been questioned as a hoax, I think that the safest thing here would be to delete this and turn it into a redirect (after the Chaney related issues are resolved as a whole) rather than just make it a redirect with history.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:23, 11 December 2015 (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.