Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight and Revenge


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fight and Revenge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Only "source" is a clipping on Facebook which may or may not be real (falsifying newspaper clippings is easy these days). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. I can't find any media coverage. Unsure if this is a hoax/fake/someone being confused over an unfinished project/released under a different name/or what. While Winters is genuine and so are at least some of his other films, this is questionable. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'd like to assume the newspaper clipping is accurate but he even says that there's not much reasonable information about it around the Internet. My searches found nothing good either not even an IMDb so if it exists it must've been a very indie film. SwisterTwister   talk  17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it - It may be an indie and forgotten movie but still it has a very known director and quite popular cast (including 90s action star Matt McColm). AngelOfDestiny   talk  14:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But what about the non-existent significant sources? SwisterTwister   talk  16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of lost films and add there -- it doesn't look like the list requires independent notability (and this one does not seem to be notable) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would recommend against including this in any other articles just for the sheer fact that we cannot even prove its existence. The only thing we have is a newspaper clipping that to be quite honest, looks kind of photoshopped. There's just something about it that looks really, really off, like it was put together with a computer program. I can only guess that they're talking about The Sunday Times in the newspaper clipping since that's the only thing that comes up in a search that looks feasible with the name "New Sunday Times", so I'll e-mail the paper to ask if this was an actual story or not. If it is then it could maybe merit a redirect... maybe. I'm not really happy with the idea of the lost film list not requiring some sort of notability for the list since there are a lot of films that could be considered "lost" in some form or fashion and most list articles do require some independent notability since a lot of people have discovered that this is a loophole they can exploit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Sunday edition of the New Straits Times? (The England newspaper would make more sense than one in Malaysia, but I'll make sure to email them.) Either way this just really feels off somehow. A search for the date shows that May 20, 1996 was a Monday. I'll email both papers to find out either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what's getting me is that the text doesn't really look like typical newsprint text and the top box containing the headline is blue, like you'd see if someone was selecting a specific section of an image document they were putting together. The text is also somewhat different in the header and the caption under the photo, as the caption is fuzzier than the text of the document, which is far more clear. I might be overthinking it, but I believe that this is what is really bugging me about this image. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:45, 4 May 2015 (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.