Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky 1 (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Participants have expressed some doubts over whether the sourcing is sufficient or not to pass notability guidelines, but overall the consensus seems to be for deletion. Some of the possible sources that Schmidt was looking for have not been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ricky 1
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Well, after a successful deletion by a retired user, it appears that this article is back again since July 2012. Sadly, it still appears to suck at meeting Notability (films), because there is no cult following or independent coverage I could find on this film, nor is the reception of this film any reliable, or if even being reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd is significant enough. If there happens to be any independent sources about Ricky 1 that are enough for this article to be here, I'll be happy to withdraw if I find out about it. However, as it stands, I think it's unlikely that finding an independent source will happen. Sorry William T. Naud. EditorE (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per these sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also found this. I could withdraw this, but I'll keep the discussion going if this article should still be here or not, or if more sources come up. EditorE (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Found this source. EditorE (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Just as I opined at the last AFD, and even after taking some measures to improve the article, I feel this one does not have the requisite critical review, analysis, or commentary to meet WP:NF. It might be argued that it is perhaps "best known" for being a really bad film parody, but even being such a baqd film, it failed to recive much commentary... though the VHS box cover claims it received coverage and review by Hollywood Reporter and London Times,(as "claimed" on cover-shot seen 55 seconds into this CineMassacre review) I have been unable to find any such reviews. "Should" they exist and be brought forward, my delete would become a "weak keep". The entire film is available on Youtube, and yes... it's a true stinkard. I went there to see the full film credits missing from IMDB.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe if your still in touch with William T. Naud after doing a family film with him a few years ago, ask him if he was ever interviewed about the film or if he saw any reviews of the film. EditorE (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being shot on a set constructed at Cheyenne Studios in Castaic, the film Young Davey Crockett was stillborn. Naud fired his directors, took over the project himself, and then failed to pay his actors. And no... I lost touch with that unfinished production years ago. Here's an on-set image of me as a colonial barrister. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And digging through old emails, I found the address of my production contact, and wrote her. No response. But I did find that Young Davy Crockett is not quite as dead as I thought.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Even bad movie can be notable, but in this case, it does not seems to have attracted much attention. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TOW  talk   01:55, 22 July 2013 (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.