Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie's Image
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. There is a complete lack of independent third party coverage, and a lack of details or reviews. Wait until it is released or at least declared more notable... seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Stephanie's Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This film totally fails WP:NF. The involvement of an Oscar nominee doesn't change that unless it is "a major part of his/her career" (from the guideline). The film is unreviewed. The film doesn't appear to have been picked up for distribution, let alone released. No prejudice if these milestones are achieved, but for now, it's not even close. Bongomatic 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is an interesting one. Had there been a few more gnews hits on this I would argue that the actress can drip some notability on the film, but as it stands the film itself fails WP:NFF at best. §FreeRangeFrog 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although, really, this is what idmb is for. Ventifax (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say keep, but why? It doesn't really seem to quite meet the general notibility guideline with only more of a passing mention in it's only source... Spiesr (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per my above statement. Spiesr (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:45, 10 March 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.