Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrap (film)

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. Par WP:SNOW - notability concerns. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap (film)[edit]

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

No speedy deletion criteria for films, but this is a non-notable film "made for his family". Corvus cornix_talk 04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And would love to see a speedy rationale; given that there appear to be no Google hits, how do we know this isn't a hoax? Alright, assuming good faith, does this mean articles about the home movies I've made of my cat can't be speedied? JNW (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This hoax article has been created by a newbie who has done nothing but make bogus genre changes to films so far. Just take a look at the edit history here.

Grayssake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor will get blocked eventually but it is a shame that we can't speedy this nonsense now. MarnetteD | Talk 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think you can speedy this. Here are the Google searches: "Scrap" "film" "Grayson Bonnett" (1 hit...Wikipedia), "Grayson Bonnett" (2 hits...Wikipedia and...Wikipedia). I think this is either just a hoax, or someone's personal homemade movie they want on Wikipedia. As such, we could at least snowball this AfD. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as at the best this one is WP:TOOSOON... and at the worst is a hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simple hoax. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability asserted, no sources, no evidence this film even exists. JIP | Talk 10:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What MarnetteD said. I've had to revert countless edits from this guy today. One edit out of dozens was possibly valid. Millahnna (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Its not a hoax, but it's not in any sense notable. scope_creep (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's not a hoax? Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The language of the article suggests it's not a hoax. scope_creep (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite there being absolutely no sources? Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just exactly what language "would" indicate a hoax? The language, punctuation (or lack thereof), grammar are all childish at best. You might want to take a look at the editors talk page. They have created a least three other articles that have been deleted so hoaxing would seem to be a pattern with them. MarnetteD | Talk 23:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability is strongly asserted in the first sentence of the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2010 (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.