Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridal Jitters

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 Speedy Delete per G7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridal Jitters

Fails WP:FILM. A Google search for this movie returns very few results, most of which are about a book published in 2005, not a short film released in 2008. A Google News Archive search returns unrelated results. The IMDb entry for one of the leading actresses, Nicole Brunner, doesn't even mention this film. Furthermore, the two directors of this film have red links. The IMDb search for the director Michael Hector returns no results. The IMDb search for the second director, John Hale, returns twelve results, but I don't know which John Hale from the IMDb search is related to the movie. This film is either non-notable or a hoax. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the text which the creator Lonedale (talk · contribs) placed on this article after s/he removed the prod I placed on it:

NOTE TO EDITOR SUGGESTING DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE. I have written this short article in response to many phone calls and e-mails asking about this unusual project, which was undertaken to illustrate a new approach in filmmaking. We have gathered a group of talented actors who have had limited opportunities to promote their careers, and a group of individuals who have the technical knowledge and equipment for making movies that meet professional standards, to produce a short film of exceptional quality that is not motivated or influenced by commercial interests. Such privately-made and privately-financed films can provide entertainment and public education on a variety of subjects at a very low cost, relative to commercial productions. For this reason, we anticipate that these kinds of films will be welcomed by future video distributors, who will need less expensive media to satisfy their ever growing audiences. Thank you for considering this request to let the article remain on Wikipedia.

Cunard (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search for the film's title and "John Hale" returns just three hits, one of which is Wikipedia [1]. A search for "Bridal Jitters" & "Nicole Brunner" gets just two hits from Wikipedia [2]. The source is apparently the film's producer, which would make the artilce blatant original research, and I don't see any evidence that this film is an "unusual project... which was undertaken to illustrate a new approach in filmmaking". Either non-notable or a hoax, but either way the article should go. PC78 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per general notability guidelines for films. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independant sources, lacks notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate the author's intent, but Wikipedia isn't the place for initial promotion of anything, really. When buzz starts about this project, and there are reliable sources to document its notability, then an article might be appropriate. As it stands, though, the article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete I added a speedy tag to article as per author replacing content with a request to delete, added db-blanked tag. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (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.