Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergeant Cheerleader


 * 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 speedy delete as spam. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant Cheerleader

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

An (unfinished) movie project by college students. Giving the best, WP:CRYSTAL applies, because this isn't released, and there appears to be no indication if/when it will be released. Not diminishing college efforts at film-making, but WP:V is not met. Of the external links given, the only one that might satisfy WP:RS would be the college newspaper (and I don't know how RS is applied to college newspapers, to be honest). Unable to find any guidelines at WP:NF which would apply to this film Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for so many reasons. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the film is already shooting, and may actually have wrapped, the guidelines are clear. Actually, this sort of thing is exactly what they were made for. While use of dependent sources is acceptable to some degree to verify information, to establish notability for inclusion, it needs to have won awards, include notable actors or be written about by reliable independent sources. None of the film guidelines are met. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the news article from the VA Informer website, you will see that the information in the article is validated. Also, we indicate that the release date is scheduled for February 25. I will add another news article as additional proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtcheer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not if the film or if the information provided is valid, but rather if it can be supported under the requirements for inclusion. Please read WP:NF and see if you can agree if the film meets any of those guidelines. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, the only 'real' coverage is in the online campus paper--locally fine, no doubt, but hardly qualifying as the kind of source we'd like to see. Second, given the lack of real coverage, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." And I don't see how the production itself is notable. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sergeant Cheer, you may want to leave the AfD notice, which I just restored to the article, in peace. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (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.