Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Protection Program (3rd nomination)

Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment.SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article is lacking reliable sources ~~and is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF~~ but with the info shown below seems to be a valid film.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems I messed up my nomination. My reason for the nom should have read: "Repeatedly recreated unreferenced article for non-notable future film. Speedy (repost) tag was removed without comment." - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~: I don't see any justification for removing the speedy delete tag. It is a repost. There is something extremely funky about this thing. It doesn't quite seem to be a hoax, but when I look in all the places that I would expect to find announcements of a Disney Channel Original Movie, I'm not finding this one.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found one decent source for the plot and existence of the movie at http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/display/display_item.aspx?item=ph/htm/112568_433.htm .—Kww(talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That proves it exists. Now we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources for notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. There are several other criteria that indicate notability of a movie. One of them (Significant involvement of a notable individual applies. The top three cast members are notable in their own right and that's just by a cursory glance.) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think we do. I struck out speedy delete, but I didn't write in keep, because I'm conflicted. This film barely seems to exist, despite starring some of the most recognizable Disney creations. Everything in Wikipedia:Notability (films) is stated to apply only if backed by books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism, and specifically excluding the kind of source I found, which fall under media reprints of press releases, trailers, and advertising for the film. Where is a truly independent and reliable source to push this thing past WP:N? Someone needs to find at at least one.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Princess Protection Program is in fact a real Disney Channel Original Movie. The article itself could use some cleanup, but if it's sources you are looking for, try these:

If these aren't enough, I can come up with more. That's not a problem because the movie EXISTS!Cssiitcic (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have other pages on upcoming movies, why delete this one?Cssiitcic (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If articles for other upcoming Disney movies were kept (such as Dadnapped) then this one should be kept, too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleen8463 (talk • contribs) 12:25, January 28, 2009(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for cleanup and expansion. While the current article is poorly sourced (no offense to the author), a cursory search seems to indicate that there is enough out there to easuily meet the guideline of WP:NFF. This means that deletion should be taken off the table. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes... if the article is still here in 5 hours when I get off of work, I'll fix it myself. I think it cam be a worthy inclusion to Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And there is Google News that would seem to indicate that things have gotten beter toward meeting WP:NFF since the first AfD's, not worse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Watch those Google News results ... not a one from a reliable source. That's what I was commenting on above ... 90 days before release, with two of their major stars in it, and I would expect their PR machine to be in full motion. It's not. I fully expected when I saw this pop up on my watchlist again that I would find decent sourcing for it, and there doesn't seem to be much available on it. Something's funky.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael. Ikip (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — see first two gNews hits at [1]. Looks like it finally has enough verifiable speculation to not be crystalballery. MuZemike 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]