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~~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]

Sorry about your conflicts, but I can sympathyze. WP:NF gets a lot of grief. What the section requires is that their be a reasonable presumption that sources exists... not that you actually have to present them. Now certainly its a quibble... and one that gets kicked around quite a bit... but considering that principle filming HAS finished and it has been announced that it WILL air on June 19 2009, it is a safe presumption that in the following few days, weeks, and months that Disney will be hyping the hell out of their new tween idols. I do not have to have the articles in my hand to KNOW its gonna happen... and that's the happy part about presumption. However, and all that aside, the article has indeed been expanded and sourced.. at least to sites catering to Disney fluff. You can put your money that there will indeed be more... lots more... as Disney gets the hypr train rolling. And currently I am checking article about these tweeners. Safe presumption. Safe bet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My final analysis is that this thing is not currently notable. There's no reliable press about it at all. The closest to an independent reliable source that anyone found was in the New York Times, but that was simply a program listing, and that fails WP:NF as a source of notability.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 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]

Well, I bumped edits with a few kind contributors, but the article has been nicely expanded and prpperly sourced with everyone's help. It's not the flashiest, but with filming having been competed and Disney airing it on June 19, you can just bet its gonna get all kinds of happy hype for their new tween idols. Its a another Disney Keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and removed a lot of that ... blog-sourced info, and what looked to be a pirated copy of the trailer.—Kww(talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It has several of Disney's hottest pre-teen stars. When their publicity people begin the push, you'll be seeing this on billboards accross the country. Pity, as it is all a bit contrived and saccherine... but it will have coverage to burn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient information to verify the existence of this movie. Given its cast, it is virtually certain to obtain uncontested notability soon after release (and the arguments that it already has such status—while weak—seem persuasive to many here. Given the high likelihood of recreation, seems pointless to delete it now. If by some chance it is never widely reviewed or fails to get any additional coverage, bring it back to AfD. Bongomatic 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]