Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercroc


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Supercroc

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A movie that does not appear to be notable. I was only able to find one full-length review from a possibly reliable source, here, which generally is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Any other coverage I could find were either brief mentions, or reviews from unreliable sources such as blogs. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Many hits for the actual fossil Supercroc, or Chance the Snapper as the Chicago Tribune called it. Zero for this film. Non-notable, almost sounds like direct-to-DVD film. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wish that there were sources out there for this, as I get a weird sense of glee in being able to establish notability for the strange, z grade horror films out there. But there's just nothing. This is one of the multitude of Asylum films that just never gained the coverage needed for an article. As far as redirecting goes, I think that this would be better suited redirecting to sarcosuchus, given that this seems to be a relatively used term to describe it. It also seems to be used to describe the deinosuchus, so perhaps a hatnote would be in order as well. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep one review listed above, and another at Dread Central  Donald D23   talk to me  20:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. www.cinema-crazed.com does not have on staff reviewers, but accepts submitted content from anyone without strong editorial oversight. As such I would not consider it a reliable source or significant coverage. Dread Central does have editorial oversight, I would accept that as RS. However, GNG requires a minimum of three reliable sources with independent significant coverage and we only have one piece of RS. Therefore, fails GNG and NFILM due to lack of sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (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.