Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holyman Undercover

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. Missvain (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holyman Undercover[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are one press release and two namechecks. The usual sites have no professional reviews of this movie. I don't think even God Awful Movies has reviewed it. In the 120 or so unique Google hits, I did not find a single usable RS that is actually about this movie. It exists, it's bad, it's almost universally ignored, and that's about all you can say. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I had the same issue in regards to searching it up on Google. I even gave it a shot by searching this movie on Google Scholar. Regards. JayzBox (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2021 (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.