Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess protection plan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess protection plan

Unreleased movie, not-notable and fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability criteria per [1]. I see ~~IMBD~~ imdb, which is not a reliable source. This makes the article part of WP:CRYSTAL. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've never heard of the Internet Movie Batadase before. Is it new? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, good catch. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one who has noonerized that spame before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clear evidence of notability here: [2][3][4][5].

Smith Jones (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That last source is ... I don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like RS material to me. The second to last is a google search, which isn't at all a notability metric (see THISNUMBERISHUGE, the only mention in the second is an audition reading for the movie by an actor, and the first is IMDB, which isn't generally considered a reliable source. Even if it were, the only thing it mentions is that an actor is in it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#2 was pulled from YouTube, and #4 looks to be fanfiction. Boolean values are great, Smith Jones, and you should really learn how to use them in such things as Google searches. The one in #3 gave you everything with those three words in it; "princess protection plan" (in quotes) only gives three hits. Nate • (chatter) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, he/she spelt "princess" wrong in the Google search anyway...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to future recreation per my above criticism of presented sources. While it may not have much coverage now, as a movie that might be in production in the future, sources can show up at any time. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, and Smith Jones, your Google search was just utterly wrong. Corvus cornix_talk 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Epic fail on sources; even the silliest YouTube video gets more than three hits unlike this title. Nate • (chatter) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No proof that this even exists yet; WP:CRYSTAL indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fine but you should a t least give permission for recreation if and when theis film proves itself to be exist. and i see no reason why a reference to these movies cant be made later on when there are better sources. Smith Jones (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.