Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries 3: The Royal Wedding

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 speedy delete. NW (Talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries 3: The Royal Wedding[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax. Nothing on IMDB, Google News, or Google Search CTJF83 chat 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Cargoking talk 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm always suspicious of films which proclaim it should have been released but was then delayed. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sequel to a film from six years ago? This does not make sense, especially since Anne Hathaway's choice in roles has drawn away from her early Disney image by a long shot (along with...uh, her age). You're not going to convince me they're going to convince a big-ticket 28 year-old star to reprise the 17 year-old role that brought her to prominence at this point, and not for anything under $25 million. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless reliable third party sources can be found to show that the film has begun principal photography, the film fails WP:NFF and does not deserve its own article just yet. No prejudice towards recreation should the film eventually meet the specified requirements. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight case of ignoring the rules here and jumping the gun (and a copy and paste of the reason I just used at another AFD) as I have filed a report at WP:SPI, but this is so clearly an Alexcas11 (talk · contribs) creation in the inimitable Alexcas11 style that there is probably nothing that can be saved here. Occasionally he creates articles based on real projects, but the lack of sources would tend to suggest this isn't one of them. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article creator was confirmed as Alexcas11 sock. If a sequel is made, then of course an article can be created, but this particular article is a fantasy/hoax, FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete. An unreferenced and unverifiable future film. It seems to be a hoax. Laurinavicius (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (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.