Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty 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. No sources - no article.  Sandstein  05:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Movie

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

The film appears not to have been widely released if it has been released at all, the article is completely lacking references, and no significant coverage was found from Google, Google News, or Google Books searches. Michig (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to imdb it's in post-production. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This press-release suggests otherwise, and that it is actually finished and was premiered 3 months ago. IMDB is a useful resource but not a reliable source. I haven't found any significant coverage of the film, or any evidence that it passes WP:MOVIE.--Michig (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NFF, as principle film has finished and National Lampoon and Christopher Meloni films get coverage., , , . Just a matter of letting it be and watch it grow.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may never be released. It may never receive significant coverage in reliable sources (which is still a requirement for future films). When it does, an article would be justified, but such coverage does not appear to exist at this time, despite the film being premiered three months ago. The film wasn't made by National Lampoon, which in any case has little or no relation to the organization that it was in its heyday, when National Lampoon films could be relied on to become notable. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources covering this at all means no encyclopedia article. If this happens to get released and become notable some day, then and only then should an article be written. THat something might become notable some day in the fuzzy future is a poor reason to have an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Bali ultimate. The article isn't bad, but unless sources are provided, it doesn't meet WP:GNG.  TheAE  talk / sign  16:54, 17 April 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.