Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Days 10 Lifes


 * 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. Tone 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

10 Days 10 Lifes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously prodded and challenged. Still doesn't seem notable. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a hoax. Besides being badly written (the character is the last what?), the movie has no IMDB entry and neither does Mark Denny Jr. (the star/writer/director). No relevant Google hits either.  TJ   Spyke   00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. It's a film...that's going to be released...on a web site. No notable participants, no sources, no ghits, no nuttin'. Somebody's bored at work. This is definitely A7. My guess is that this film is made in the author's garage.  Graymornings (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seriously, but a film has to have as least a IMDb listing before inclusion on Wikipedia. Conversely, there are millions of films on IMDb that don't have Wikipedia articles so this one is an easy delete. (Besides, the film maker needs spelling help)Tavix (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd argue against your idea that a film needs an IMDB entry. I'm working on an article of a multi-award winning film, with notable actors participating which still hasn't had an IMDB listing 2 years after its release. IMDB appears to be biased towards films from the west. So technically it's not needed, provided it's verifiable and notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid point as IMDB is still adapting to the idea of the new media. However, webisode projects do now get listed on IMDB. Not many... but some do get listed...,  19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question, does this film have a Wikipedia article that meets notability standards? Tavix (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (A7) as web content (movie to be on the Internet) that does not show any sense of remarkability. Even if I'm incorrect, we're leaning towards WP:SNOW. MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. ReverendG (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable subject. Camw (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with a trout slap for a (real) spelling error in the (hypothetical) title. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It clearly fails the guideline on future films also, since it's released to a website, it's possibly an A7 web speedy because it doesn't claim any notability only existence. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I like the honesty...they're very clear about the fact that it's NOT going to be released in theaters!  Graymornings (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - it seems to clearly be a prima facie case of patent nonsense - do we really need to let an AfD continue to cook? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy without too much prejudice. If or when this film gets any coverage in reliable sources, bring it back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.