Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The last shot (2010 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. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last shot (2010 film)[edit]

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

Hoax film, PROD removed by creator, SD was declined as not a blatant hoax, nothing on IMDB CTJF83 GoUSA 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator claims a student film, so it isn't notable. Also article contains conflicting information and big-name stars, so highly unlikely to be accurate. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert the subject's notability. RadManCF (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted questionable content for the page, making it more suitable for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N easter12345 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not the questionable content it is the lack of notability that makes it eminently deletable. --Bejnar (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax, it's a student film. That's fine. Only problem is that student films are not inherently notable. This should not be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If the film gets coverage upon its release, it's possible that there might be a claim of notability. But the article is premature, and we don't predict future notablity. So, delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we can always undelete it if the film gains notability. Nyttend (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who removed the speedy because it wasn't blatant in my mind, but I was also the one who placed the prod. While the lack of sources doesn't necessarily indicate a hoax, it indicates that it's not notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunate that there are so many films by this name, making seraches for this one a bit difficult. However, and as this is a student film that has no coverage and has yet to be released, the article is a tad premature and Wikipedia can delete without prejudice toward return if and or when it can assert and source notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability Cynof Gavuf 09:23, 27 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.