Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duct-Tape (short)

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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duct-Tape (short)[edit]

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

Per WP:BALL - about a future film that's yet to be produced. No notability asserted. Dusti^*poke* 02:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Looks to be part of an advertising spree; see Mark Rattenbury (already nominated for speedy) and Mark (Duct-Tape) (already PRODed). I might even go speedy delete as advertising, actually, having seen those other two. Ignatz mice•talk 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources. (BTW, I redirected the Mark article to this article.) —teb728 t c 03:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had PRODed it just after Dusti AfD'd it for the reason mentioned by TEB728. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:NFF. Project also appears to fail WP:V. Kindest thing we might suppose is that this is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 8 July 2013 (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.