Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy a directors cut

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guy a directors cut

This film isn't listed in the Internet Movie Database. I found references online to New Guy, The Director's Cut, a 2002 dvd release. This article appears to be about another film of questionable notability altogether. -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn amateur film. ManoaChild 12:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I consider an IMDB entry to be the absolute minimum inclusion criteria for films and their makers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can provide a link to a noteworthy festival showing the film. IMDB is sometimes VERY slow about updating info, especially with small films like this, so having an IMDB article on a recent movie isn't neccesarily a fair basis on which to judge a movie.--Frag 21:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn film vanity. --Etacar11 00:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why would you hassle this article? Wikipedia isn't just for professionals. I have seen many articles like this.

Unsigned comment above contributed by 81.156.237.92, who also blanked this VfD. Users first edit. -- Longhair | Talk 10:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: i too have seen articles like this (Unsigned comment by 212.139.38.16 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• According to the article: Created only for the enjoyment of the director's and the actor's entertainment, the movie is not officially listed nor available for sale. That makes it unverifiable. Delete. If there are other articles like this, they should be deleted too. --Metropolitan90 14:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Save: It's ridiculus to undermine one article's credibility to another; a website article is independant, too, just like a movie, so your arguments of non-professional artices is extreme and unjust. (Unsigned vote by 212.139.42.76 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.