Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Righteous Cowards

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. Article already speedy deleted as G4 hoax. Closing discussion as moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righteous Cowards[edit]

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

I cannot find significant discussion of this film in reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. ... discospinster _talk 01:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. There's no proof no Atlantis but...It could exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added byBuckster69 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing applicable notability criteria. To Buckster69, whether this made-for-$49 short film exists or not is not the major concern. Rather, the fact that it has not been the recipient of commentary or analysis in independent reliable sources. This one is spoken of no place except unreliable sources... and THAT's the concern. Please review WP:NF, WP:RS and WP:V to understand our concerns and requirements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. Exactly what I was going to post in my rationale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Likely hoax... Even if this film DOES exist, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May exist - I can't find evidence either way. Likely to be a case of 'wannabe' - the film maker is supposedly 15 and appears to be the author of both the article about the film and himself (speedied). Definitely non-notable. Peridon (talk) 14:07, 16 April 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.