Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance meltdown


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance meltdown

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. This article is about a non-notable student film. There are no independent sources cited in the article, and Google turns up nothing about the film. But for it being a film and not a web program, I would have speedy deleted it under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unreleased student film, no reliable source coverage, totally non-notable. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could find no reliable sources for this article and it provides none. The references cited for this student film are the school website and our article on Zebra. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clearly not notable, why is there no speedy cat for stuff like this? ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried :) I figured that the distribution would be via web, so I tagged it as non-notable web content. And as long as I'm here, delete. § FreeRangeFrog 20:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Not notable with no reliable sources. I'm starting to wonder if this infact a hoax. Bidgee (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's a hoax, but User:Reconfirmation adding awards to the article that don't verify (diff) isn't helping the cause. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that user is now adding completely bogus information. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some searching as well as some research and I've found nothing. The "sources" used (Which I have since removed) in the article were not "real" sources just something to make the article look sourced. I'm no thinking of changing my vote to Speedy delete as it's really smelling like a hoax. Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, hoaxy looking, and appears to be unverifiable at the moment, even if it's real. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 28 February 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.