Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile (2011 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 speedy delete. NW (Talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile (2011 film)[edit]

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

Unreferenced (the external links are for a different film) and unverifiable future film. The lack of information I could find about this film, plus the creator's past history, suggest this may be a hoax. I42 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." I suggest offering to WP:USERFY prior to deletion, so that (assuming this is a non-hoax) the creator can bring it back if and when a reliable source surfaces that indicates that filming has commenced. I saved The Runaways (film) to my userspace when it was being (rightfully) PRODded, so we wouldn't have to start from scratch when it came back; same idea. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight case of ignoring the rules here and jumping the gun as I have filed a report at WP:SPI, but this is so clearly an Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) creation in the inimitable Alexcas11 style that there is probably nothing that can be saved here. Occasionally he creates articles based on real projects, but the lack of sources would tend to suggest this isn't one of them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Definitely an Alexcas11 sock, according to SPI. That and the lack of any sources for the existence of this project (particulary given the high-profile cast list asserted) means that it is almost certainly a hoax article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Just to clarify my last comment: there may be a project of this name, but the assertions in this article have no basis and in that sense, it's a hoax.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unreferenced and unverifiable future film. It seems to be a hoax. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:10, 12 February 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.