Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Broadcast 3D


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Last Broadcast 3D

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Hoax not blatant so don't think WP:G3 applies  C T J F 8 3  chat 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  Marcus   Qwertyus   21:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax, absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per failing WP:NFF (See WP:TOOSOON).... and no Armbrust, its not quite a hoax... simply a project in development by an unknown director... and waaaaay too soon for this article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources are reliable. C T J F 8 3  chat 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not assert that they were... only that the project is not a hoax. Note that I do agree with deletion because lack of reliable sources makes this article premature. We are not in disagreement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying those 2 sources don't indicate it's not a hoax. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... the trailer shows something is in perhaps in progress... somewhere... and so is then indicative that a "film", in whatever minimal version, and by whatever unknown filmmaker, exists as an idea and a concept and a trailer... and if called a "film" is not exactly a hoax, even if never completed. Heck, even a non-notable 60 second student "film" posted on youtube is still a "film", per definition.  But we are in compete agreement that for inclusion herein it needs to be a whole lot more: completed, screened, reviewed, covered in reliable sources, etc.  So even in my assuming the best of good faith, it can be seen that this article easily fails all pertinent notability criteria, and is waaaaaaaaaay TOOSOON.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:43, 23 October 2010 (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.