Deletion of Our Feature Presentation

Comment: MQS's "sources" are all film compendia, similar to IMDb.com, that allow user submissions.  As such, none of them provide any more erifiability|verifiability than IMDb itself, which is not generally allowed as a |reliable source.  The "reviews" referenced in the article are not reviews at all, but rather are feature articles about the PRODUCTION of the film, not about the released product.  As far as anyone can tell, this movie started production, but never actually got released or shown anywhere.  Also, the article, as it stands today, has no mention of ''Variety''.  Perhaps this citation was deleted? Finally, notability of the producer does not automatically confer notability to the project, especially if it can't be verified that the project was ever completed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I can't say I prefer your updates, as they represent a copyright violation (and have been so marked).  I find it curious that the synopsis of the film is IDENTICAL at all four movie sites cited (IMDb.com, hollywood.com, tcm.com and screenrush.co.uk).  It's almost as if someone went and created entries at all of these sites just to show some notability for the film.  Unfortunately, listings on these sites do NOT confer |notability as they are open to unverifiable user edits.  Since no independent review can be found for the film, it fails notability.  The linked news stories (from a local paper) tell of a movie in production, but not of a finished product
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)