Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Friggin' Daisies

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. ✗plicit 03:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Friggin' Daisies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I found no significant coverage on Google and Newspapers.com. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nothing on Newspapers, Wayback, Google, or other databases. I don't see how the article can or could meet the notability criteria per NFSOURCES at NFILM. Likewise I am not seeing other evidence of notability per NFO. One line, poorly sourced stub with negligible potential for improvement. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found only directories and Wikipedia mirrors. There is so little out there that I think it might be a WP:HOAX. What say you, @SL93: and @MaxnaCarta:? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...This has left me confused. It is not a hoax, why do you suggest that? There are too many links to different sites be they reviews or blogs, plus screenshots from the film in Google images to be a hoax. Not notable, but not a hoax. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can we prove that though? There are no recordings of the movie anywhere, which is jaw dropping for something involving as big a name as Zooey Deschanel. Literally 100% of the entries on Google are just mirrors of IMDb and/or Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you would believe me, but I have seen the short film years ago. Plus there are lots of screen captures available online. Definitely not a hoax. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obviously not a hoax.
1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330956/
2. https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-sgkiuq/sweet-friggin-daisies/
3. Newsmakers: [3 STAR , 0 edition]. (2006, Jan 02). Houston Chronicle Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/newsmakers/docview/396182135/se-2?accountid=196403
4. Ratliff, L. (2003, Apr 25). Generational saga a fine mess: [metro edition]. San Antonio Express-News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/generational-saga-fine-mess/docview/262249816/se-2?accountid=196403
5. Identity theft charges have model posing for mugshot: Salt lake telegram. (2006, Jan 01). Deseret News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/identity-theft-charges-have-model-posing-mugshot/docview/351401622/se-2?accountid=196403 CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still incredibly sus to me because of how little proof exists beyond the most superficial of mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it being a not notable short film seems like a very likely explanation and this being an elaborate hoax seems exceptional unlikely. Occam's razor applies here. CT55555 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. IMDb links to a two sentence long non-English review so I don't see how the film could be a hoax. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (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.