Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Hound film (2016)


 * 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 speedy deleted by  SuperMarioMan, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (SEFPRODUCTIONS) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Demon Hound film (2016)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Future film that currently fails the notability guideline. The director also appears to fail the relevant notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced (one cite is to an RT review of a previous film) and absolutely WP:TOOSOON assuming this even gets to production.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy G5 - Sockpuppet investigations/SEFPRODUCTIONS Bazj (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete We do cover unreleased films, as long as they do get some coverage. See Category:Upcoming films which currently contains almost 1000 articles. But in this case this "article" is devoid of information. Who created this film, in what country, what language, etch. We do not even have a proper title. This is not even a stub, its no article at all. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And I will have to disagree with Loriendrew about the existence of a Rotten Tomatoes "review" about the previous film Black Shuck (2012). That page only mentions the existence of this film. It has no reviews from either critics or audience, just 2 people interested in seeing it. Compare the same website's page on on Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. That one has noted 316 reviews from critics, and 171,138 user ratings. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While the review is a non-review (semantics), it still has no relevancy to the notability of this article. I was explaining why I said unsourced when there was a reference/link.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  23:17, 3 January 2016 (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.