Talk:Abominable (2006 film)

message: 1) A cursory internet search only returns only unacceptable 2ndary sources withe the number one item being the films own website.
2) The secondary reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFLLM
3) There is no  full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.
4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 
5) The film is not historically notable.
6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals. 
7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. 
8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.
10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. 
11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema. 
I beleive this film should be given a prod tag. It does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFLLM and should be nominated for deletion. Barton Foley (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This film deals with aspects of popular culture, namely the Bigfoot, and is one of very few such films to deal with this topic in this manner. The film has a large IMDB entry, which I wouldn't class as an "unacceptable 2ndary source". And of course it wouldn't have featured on any documentaries on the history of cinema, it is only two years old. Whilst I agree that some of these arguments are fair, many of these others are not in my opinion. This may certainly not be a major film, but does that really mean its article should be deleted? I really don't think so. {Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: it reads
A farmer and his wife awaken in the middle of the night. They live in a cabin in the middle of the woods, alone. The husband arms himself with his gun and he and his wife venture outside to investigate the strange noise. They discover one of there cattle violently ripped open, and the farmer notes "...no bear could do that..". THERE dog then runs off into the woods, and a frightening grunt is heard and the dog whimpers. The couple flees inside and cower behind the door. They see the shadow of a large, hairy creature walk past the windows and up to the door there hiding behind. The mysterious creature grunts and walks away. After they are certian its gone, they venture outside once more to discover large footprints, left by the creature.
when it should read:
A farmer and his wife awaken in the middle of the night. They live in a cabin in the middle of the woods, alone. The husband arms himself with his gun and he and his wife venture outside to investigate the strange noise. They discover one of there cattle violently ripped open, and the farmer notes "...no bear could do that..". THEIR dog then runs off into the woods, and a frightening grunt is heard and the dog whimpers. The couple flees inside and cower behind the door. They see the shadow of a large, hairy creature walk past the windows and up to the door there hiding behind. The mysterious creature grunts and walks away. After they are certian its gone, they venture outside once more to discover large footprints, left by the creature.
Came someone please fix this spelling error? It should be their dog, not there dog.--71.97.198.37 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph of plot spelling error 

message: A sequel has been told here: Chud.com. Read the article and insert whatever information to a sequel section that you want.--ScratteLover2 (talk) (Contributions)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.198.37 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GREAT NEWS! A SEQUEL! 

message: Why no "Budget" or "Box office" financial info listed?
Just curious. 68.2.114.117 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money