Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Another Not Another Movie

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. Courcelles 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Another Not Another Movie

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

Fairly sure this is a well executed hoax Jac16888 ^Talk 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Had the nominator had a little look around he might have realized that the project is not a hoax,[1][2][3] and indeed has such persons attached. However, it does seem to be caught in production hell and does not have the coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Let it be undeleted later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look around, all of those references are based on a non existent hollywood reporter page, having a imdb page proves diddly squat and the "homepage", has very little evidence this is real. The contact details are the same as ones of the company that apparently designed the website, and the production companies it lists are "Instinct productions", the only company i can find with that name is a music company, and I can find no mention of Color green films. Add to this that the page was created by a now blocked sockpuppet--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This horse is both dead and moot. The horse is dead because eonline, TV Guide, Le Journal de Québec and others report it exists. For our purposes, it exists unless reliable sources say otherwise. It's a moot point, though, as his recommendation is delete, as is mine. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - QSchmidt seems to have hit all the points here: insufficient coverage, WP:TOOSOON, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time, as measured by RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. This film has been dragging along for a while now, starting to wonder if it will ever happen. In any case, it's definitely not a hoax. —Mike Allen 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments made above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:49, 17 December 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.