Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confession (Film 2010)


 * 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. Skomorokh 21:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Confession (Film 2010)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Exert 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. What's required of a future film is that principal photography has started, and this one's in post-production.  With notable lead actors, it may just pass.  ReverendWayne (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - vanity spam. Who's this "EdK" person and why is he editing the article?  No third-party sources cited.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article qualifies under WP:NFF. The film also meets the general notability criteria. Though, it comes with poor citations, still does not qualify for deletion. As the film progresses, more reliable sources should be quoted. As of now, I think its allright. Nefirious (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * . There's one passing news report.  That isn't "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources".  81.111.114.131 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not one reference to a reliable source. This is not a directory of any film ever, but notable works of cinematography whose existence is attested to by sources. The primary editor to the article is also one massive CoI problem, look at his name, then the name in the infobox for the (unrefenced) production company. -- M  ask?  23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, we're still in 2009, so let's wait for it to meet GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even in post-production, the lack of independent reliable sources dooms the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:23, 19 August 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.