Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immemorial (film)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Immemorial (film)

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

After one expired prod and one prod removed without any improvement to the article, this remains an unreferenced, non-notable sentence about what seems to be an amateur film that does not meet Wikipedia's policy on future films. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

its not a amateur movie but a low-budget movie! and we already got fans in germany and britain although its still in pre-production. i will improve the article when i have time... --Rex92 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of sources, also User:TenPoundHammer/Put a little effort into it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NF, especially WP:NFF - Rex92, you need to read those links, and WP:YFA. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion of non-existent film. Might get finished, might become notable. Isn't now. -Quartermaster (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice and allow return once WP:GNG and WP:NF cab be met. The article is premature.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 22 May 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.