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.
Long story short, this was an article created by an SPA and while it makes some grandiose claims, ultimately it lacks any truly independent reliable sources. All of the links refer to either IMDb or the filmmaker's website. The only review is posted on the filmmaker's website and cannot be verified as existing anywhere else. It's possible that the review might not even exist, given the overall trouble with Chaney related articles. A search brought up nothing to show that this film is notable.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There are some things to show that this film exists like
this routine mention, but not anything to show that this film passes NFILM. Given the overall issues with the Chaney related articles (which have all been created or heavily edited by promotional sockpuppets), I'm arguing for this to be deleted and a redirect created later after the issues with Chaney's article have been resolved.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)05:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Well, I gave it a good go, but I don't see much of anything. There's
this article in the Echo, but I don't think that's enough to satisfy the GNG. The Echo article acknowledges that it wasn't popular theatrically, which means we're probably not going to find much coverage. If there is offline coverage that we're not finding, the article can be recreated with better sourcing.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:39, 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.