Deletion of Sergeant Cheerleader (2nd nomination)

Comment: Since your only contributions have been to this AFD and to the article in question, I'm calling this an {{tl|SPA}}, and an apparent . Also, given that the original article was created by a user named {{userblock|Sgtcheer}}, I also raise my concerns over , given this being a group project. BUT, anyways, to address the claim that there is an article on IMDB, need we remind the commenter that ''anyone'' can add a movie to IMDB, and a presence there does not equal 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:MEAT||WP:RS)

Comment: I'll now endorse my procedural nomination. The sources provided seem to be limited to the College of William & Mary area. The subject is not notable in the same vein that the local high school football star is not notable simply because he is frequently covered in the local paper. See 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOCALFAME)

Comment: Given the apparent |blizzard that was developing from the last AFD, I'd comfortably say this could be sent under #G4, even if the AFD did not run full course
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:CSD)

Comment: The article fails the standard  version of , being mostly sourced from school papers.  It fails any of the 5 points of the presumptive version of , being neither widely distributed and reviewed, considered historically significant well after its release, the recipient of a major award, included in a national archive, or commonly taught in a notable program of study.  Its only glint of a claim to notability is the "Historical significance" section, which is a mixture of trivia (of the "yellow handbags" variety, see  note 6) or vastly inflated claims without sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MOVIE||WP:MOVIE||WP:MOVIE)