Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental (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. JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mental (film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

School project which hasn't received much (or any) attention in reliable independent sources. There are no Google News hits for the producer/director/writer of the film, no awards or reviews, no famous people involved. Fails WP:N by a wide margin. Fram (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable because there is no indication that the film meets any of the five general priciples of Notability (films). For a film this new to be considered notable after failing the general notability guidelines, it should meet either the general principle criterion #1 ("The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") or #3 ("The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."). There is certainly no indication that the film has received any major filmmaking awards so it fails criterion #3. As far as criterion #1 is concerned, the article does not claim that the film was released or screened anywhere other than Eton College campus with the sole review coming from a student writing an article for the school's own The Chronicle. Any external sources are self-published: the official film website, the filmmaker's website and YouTube videos presumably uploaded by the filmmaker. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice until such time as WP:NF can be met... however, currently fails.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. LoudHowie (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Big Bird. Not often I say something 'per someone'. Peridon (talk) 22:07, 26 November 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.