Deletion of Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games (2nd nomination)

Comment: per above. This is the third time that this has come to AfD. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3) Each time the decision was to redirect and the problem is that nothing has been added to show that any of the problems with notability have been met. I found one sole review by Commonsensemedia, but that's really it. Nobody else has given this film any true coverage to show that it merits an article of its own and the sources on the article that were usable aren't really enough to show a depth of coverage. There are things that show that the film exists, but existing is not notability. () No amount of primary sources can show notability. '''''If''''' the film were to ever gain more coverage then we can always get it un-redirected, but not before then. Given that this has been re-created several times and there has been several attempts to turn it back into an article despite the previous versions, I'd say that the redirect should probably be protected in some form or fashion, possibly by deleting the article history to discourage someone just un-redirecting this. I normally don't endorse that, but the article's history shows that after it's redirected people just un-redirect it repeatedly. Perhaps admin only editing until someone can prove that it meets notability guidelines
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS)

Comment: to Alpha and Omega (film)#Sequels until this project gets enough independent reliable coverage to meet .  '''Note:''' The previous  AFDs resulted in redirects per failing F and being |TOO SOON.  I appreciate this being returned to mainspace as it has finally been released, but the issue is now one "does this have enough coverage for a released film to meet the caveats of ". My opinion is no, |not quite yet
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:NFF||WP:NYF||WP:NYF)

Comment: Google searching the film, it's all Walmart descriptions, fanfictions, torrents, and personal blogs. Nothing that resembles a |reliable source. And we need ''significant coverage'' from reliable sources for |notability. As an alternative to deletion, we can include the most relevant content of the article in the "Sequels" section of the first movie, which is undoubtedly notable. Note that this went through AfD before just a little over a month ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha and Omega 3: The Great Wolf Games
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NF)