The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I regretfully withdrew my speedy nomination of this because it does assert importance. However, I still do not believe it meets WP:N or WP:WEB as there are no secondary sources and the cult status assert is subjective. Redfarmer (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.”
I cited the article on Film Threat – I can try to locate others.
“The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster”
It debuted on iFilm (the most prestigious of the online video sites) and is on MySpace Video, AOL Video, and it is all over YouTube (do a search – amazing how many people reposted that).
Remember, this is an underground parody with the unauthorized use of copyright protected material -- the filmmakers did not come forward to take credit and publicize their work.
I am also hopeful that the requests for deletion are not based on the film's humor and contents, which some people do not find amusing for very obvious reasons. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great fact and sourceApplemac20 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]