Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Chadwick second nomination

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 of the debate was Delete, author request Mak (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Chadwick

This page is about a film which is due to be released in 2009, only on the internet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source is a youtube video link, which is broken, and Urban dictionary, which is not an acceptable source, so it is Unverified. It is also most likely a hoax. Delete. Mak (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the YouTube link By the way this is one of the only unfinished films with ANY external links Keep in mind theres no offecial page because it's an UNFINISHED film

Its an UNFINISHED film. Go to the unfinished films category and take a loop at the films there. It's no more strange than any other films in this category. Its also a childrens movie so don't expect it to be completly serious. I would like the EXACT reason why this article is for deleation so I can edit it so it will agree with the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheehanmds (talk • contribs)

The exact policies which it fails are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mak (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

well I added the link for the Vision Films offecial website, the independent film company creating the film AND a fan-made website which by the way shows 700 hits. Now would a fake film really have 700 fans?

dont you have anything better to do than crush peoples dreams of creating a film to make kids happy?

  • I mean no disrespect to sheehanmds, and I don't intend to demean his project in any way, but even if the info in the article was verifiable, and even if the film was already released, it would still be (as far as WP is concerned) non-notable. As the article is also obviously vanity, I think it's a dead-on candidate for a vote of userfy and delete. -- Kicking222 04:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT Danny Lilithborne 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, period/full stop. Massive crystal-ball violation, for something that doesn't seem likely to be eligible for an article even if it were made. No userfication: user's only contributions have concerned this article, and I'D like to see some veidence of general contribution before suggesting an end-run around inclusion standards. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ahh fine u guys i'll delete it if its that big of a deal//

But don't worry as soon as we finish the film and get it out there this page is goin back up//

And u guys better go see LC once its out

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.