Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie with a Shotgun

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. No prejudice against userfication if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie with a Shotgun

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

Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable upcoming film. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from the "comic and web series of the same name." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per NFILM not appropriate for an article now, and maybe never appropriate for an article. But it hasn't been released yet so who knows, maybe it'll win an Oscar. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No objection to userfying this is the creator requests it since there is a possibility this will be notable once released. As it is it fails WP:NFF. There are claims it has started filming (or even finished) but I see no reliable sources to show that "the production itself is notable." The references are just IMBD and what appear to be film fan and blog sites. The sources I have looked at in detail have not even properly supported the claims they were sourcing. For instance, the IMDB site says nothing about an expected release date of May 2017, and the Horror-Movies.ca site did not contain the quote if was supporting and teh page was not a movie preview at all. I've removed those two claims, and I won't waste my time looking at the rest of the sources in detail unless this survives AFD. Meters (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

Delete for now per being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Okay with userfication. The article can be undeleted if or when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:07, 18 January 2017 (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.