Deletion of Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge

Comment: slash with light sabre and feed it to a Wookie. Oh, yes,  per  at this point, & , , , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:NOTE||WP:NFT||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: as per Haemo, who seems to have summarized things neatly.  As an additional comment, this article was Speedily Deleted twice per the deletion logs under #A7; deletes and creates all occurred same day as the AfD opening, so read into it what you will
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: okay, deep breath.  This article was literally |made up at school one day.  It has '''zero''' |reliable sources to either support, or even assert |notability.  It had a budget of 15 pounds, featured no notable directors, or actors, and no Google Hits.  Even the term "Star Flaws + Ginge" gets only 3 Google hits.  It fails every conceivable notability guidelines.  However, a number of editors have bafflingly decided to try and keep this article.  I will summarize their arguments below
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: unless it's better to retain it as a good bad example of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)