Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:05, 4 February 2008

Princess (film)

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Television movie which has not aired and little is known about. Says plot is currently unknown. Recreate when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation when (and only when) more is known. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs sourcing. The article says ABC Family is already airing promotions for the film. That disqualifies it from WP:CRYSTAL consideration. Can be rescued if someone posts a link to an ABC website or something promoting it. 23skidoo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely nothing on the ABC Family web site under the movies section. If ABC Family was promoting it, this should be one place they'd promote it. There is a listing on IMDB for the film but it's categorized as being in production and has no more information than the article. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the article is crystalballery. Says it's under production, but it's under wraps and there's no known plot. Not even a release date. Per Realkyhick, no prejudice to recreation - but it needs to be verifiable first. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, the link from the disambig page refers to the 2006 Danish anti-pornography animation/live action movie which probably deserves an entry NOT the ABC movie - here's it's page on IMBD:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavie78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps delete then rewrite woudl be appropriate? How notable is that film you mention, Cavie? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite There is simply nothing here so it's of no value to anyone. If adequate references and information can be provided then it should stay. As it is now it's a waste of space. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *'''Rewrite''', the link from the disambig page refers to the 2006 Danish anti-pornography animation/live action movie which probably deserves an entry NOT the ABC movie - here's it's page on IMBD:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419073/]  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cavie78|Cavie78]] ([[User talk:Cavie78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cavie78|contribs]]) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 **Perhaps delete then rewrite woudl be appropriate?  How notable is that film you mention, Cavie? --[[User:Dennisthe2|'''<span style="background:Orange;color:Black">Dennis The Tiger</span>''']]  ([[User talk:Dennisthe2|Rawr]] and [[Special:Contributions/Dennisthe2|stuff]]) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Rewrite''' There is simply nothing here so it's of no value to anyone.  If adequate references and information can be provided then it should stay.  As it is now it's a waste of space. [[User:Georgiamonet|Georgiamonet]] ([[User talk:Georgiamonet|talk]]) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)