Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Danny McKay Project

:{{la|The Danny McKay Project}} ([{{fullurl:The Danny McKay Project|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Danny McKay Project}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable film project. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. No significant GNEWS or GHITS ttonyb1 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources, info about it we do have indicates some indie project by a nonnotable person. It appears that the sole reason for creating the article was to try to invent a starring role for Mark Hapka (also up for deletion) to try to make him sound more significant than he is. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It is a major film coming out this year that stars Mark Hapka, and he is significant, the article for Mark Hapka has been expanded now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPMichaelJackson (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::Banned user's block-evading sock. Invalid !vote per WP:BAN. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Future films are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None offered, none found. IMDb doesn't cut it. The argument that this is notable because Hapka is in it (which is not sourced) is circular. The AfD for Hapka is arguing that he is notable because he has a starring role in this film. No one else attached to the project is notable either. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Hapka's notability has nothing to do with this film. His notability is found in his meeting WP:GNG, not for perhaps being in a film that currently fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• There's no need to bring over same bad arguments you made on that AFD to this one. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Two other editors brought that "other AfD" here first. Your choice to chastise only me is quite telling. When an argument is based upon the properly applicable guideline, calling it a "bad argument" is indefensible. Please cease these continued assumptions of bad faith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete nothing but an imdb page does not an article make. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and allow return when article can meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NF. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against recreation in the event it becomes notable after it is actually released. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (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.