Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COUNT TO 10

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COUNT TO 10

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unreleased movie that doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM yet with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. None of the sources in the article are in-depth. The only one with any actual content is [1] (transl), but it's a short news blurb announcing screening.

Declined PROD; original reason "Failed AfC as not meeting GNG and still does not do so since it's the exact same article."

Originally declined Draft:Count To 10 draft. The author copy-pasted the article to mainaapce. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy film notability or general notability; does not really have enough information to be encyclopedic; and appears to be written to praise the director. The first reason, notability failure, is the most important. Robert McClenon (talk)
- - It is true that having been declined or even rejected at AFC is not a reason for speedy deletion, but being declined for lack of notability is directly relevant to notability. It is true that a declined PROD is not a reason to delete, but it is also not a reason to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I was the declining AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who proposed the deletion. Doesn't seem to be controversial so far. CatcherStorm ^talk 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, absolutely not notable.--WikiAviator (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not establish notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should be non-controversial. I would close the discussion but I can't per WP:NACD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CatcherStorm ^talk 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here even hints at notability. Reads like a copy vio from a press release. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CatcherStorm: Why would you consider closing a discussion where you have participated? And why relist and not let someone else close? This even passes WP:NOQUORUM. This seems like strange reasoning. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. ARASH PT talk 09:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original creator of the article has been blocked as a result of this sockpuppet investigation. Therefore, delete. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.