Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke and the Void

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. Courcelles 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and the Void

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

Short film that does not meet criteria of WP:NFILM. Search of Google brings up 37 "unique" results. First version of article claimed that it had won a Cannes Film Festival award, something that I was not able to verify. Now that claim is removed but I can't find any reliable source that verifies it was screened at the Swansea Bay Film Festival. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to festival appearances. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Grant userfication request if made by article author User:Fergito for continued work. Caution contributing editor User:Mattfreeth about WP:COI as his username is the same as that of the film's writer/director. Granted, I took the article as nominated and corrected it for style and format, but I was unable to do anything more than confirm its existance. As the article asserts multiple festival screenings and multiple awards, these need to be properly cited. And if userfied, the author might find and offer the sources I could not. AND, of off of mainspace, he might seek input and assistance from others. But as it currently stands, the article fails WP:Notability (films). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (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.