Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie and the Three Musketeers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbie and the Three Musketeers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Future films are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs work, but considering it's available for pre-order on Amazon, that should prove notability. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh God, not another Barbie video for my little cousin to force me to sit through.... oh, sorry, Keep part of a notable series and enough sources to prove that it will actually be released. - 2 ... says you, says me 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't doubt that it is scheduled to come out ("come out"? Barbie in Pride Day Celebration?), that it is part of a notable series or that you'll have to sit through it. I doubt that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show that it is notable enough for its own article before it comes out. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FILMNOT states that films that have commenced principle photography are generally eligible for inclusion. Additionally, the WP:GNG is met since this is part of the Barbie film series. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The GNG specifically says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are no independent reliable sources at all for this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FILMNOT states that films that have commenced principle photography are generally eligible for inclusion. Additionally, the WP:GNG is met since this is part of the Barbie film series. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the creator of this article, I can assure you that the source I found proving the release for this future film is very reliable and I believe it is enough to keep my article. The source is a trailer and I have placed the link for it in the article. - LightSpirit06 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009
- Comment This is copyright violation in its present form ("BarbieCollector" at youtube does not present any argument that ze has been permitted to post this copyrighted trailer to youtube.). Further, if we do find a valid link for the official trailer, it is not an independent source. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Other films (e.g. Disney ones) that have not been released yet have their own articles. Vltava 68 06:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That other unreleased films have articles is not relevant. Those articles either present significant coverage in independent reliable sources (which this one does not) or they, like this one, should be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added a valid reference and cleaned up the promotional material. As I said, the article still needs work, but it doesn't need to be deleted. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:44, 28 June 2009 (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.