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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylcox[edit]

Completely non notable film. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by author, a single purpose account. J Milburn (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, but just you wait Dylcox (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some kind of threat? J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm just saying that it's gonna be big Dylcox (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once it is notable, it can have an article. Get the coverage, then get a Wikipedia article. J Milburn (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the concerns of crystal-ballism, neither this movie nor its production company have any online presence beyond a couple of YouTube videos and an under-construction website. The YouTube trailers are not indicative of a product that is likely to meet film notability standards, either. Serpent's Choice (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vapor, so there is no covering a thing that simply does not exist. If it gets made, gets distributed, gets seen, and does something, then it will be a notable product. Violation of WP:VANITY. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not a reliable source. Travellingcari (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (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.