This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshuaz (talk | contribs) at 07:58, 1 April 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:58, 1 April 2006 by Joshuaz (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Funkastophales
Non-notable movie. I tried prodding it, but apparently someone 67.183.90.139 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) objects to this (see the user's talk page). Therefore, I'm bringing this here. JoshuaZ 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable movie, no IMDb profile --TBC
05:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan
05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because Google shows no hits and the content isn't verifiable. (Pity in a way, as the movie sounds a lot more interesting than many movies whose existence is all too verifiable.) -- Hoary 06:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete...
Content isnt on IMDB because it hasn't been released yet. It is a local film that has played in Seattle and Portland made by an independent who is the cousin of crispin glover. Content is easily verifiable. IMDB is not a standard for the existence of cinema. What does notable mean? The filmmakers web page is http://www.zerohorizon.com/zerohorizonoldold.html You have raised an intersting question in any case...Misplaced Pages hosting content that doesn't exist in another location would simply defeat the purpose of its existence, it would make wikipedia a cache/search engine. Your argument simply makes the statement that Misplaced Pages does not have content that is unique. This movie is definitely not a main stream movie and their are many films not listed in imdb. You should state what verifiable means?
- Comment The criteria for that are at WP:V. JoshuaZ 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well your prodding for deletion does not meet the requirements here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.
- Do not delete... It doesn't meet the criteria for deletion and it is becoming obvious after reading the talk page that the original deleter has a personal interest in removing the article.