Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonebook (Film)

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 Delete --JForget 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phonebook (Film)

Phonebook (Film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can find no evidence that this movie even exists, which suggests this is a hoax article. The article contains a link to a spoof YouTube trailer. Proposed deletion was removed with no edit summary. Bovlb (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep: I think this article deserves more then 26 hours to mature to be honest. Although there is definatly definitely no feature films by that name, so it will have a hard time meeting WP:Notability. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, obviously. If no feature film by this name exists, why should the article be given more than 26 hours? Maxamegalon2000 06:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Because just because a feature film of that name doesn't exist, doesn't mean it isn't something else, mislabelled. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#G3, vandalism ("blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation"). --MCB (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced and unencyclopedic, though those are cleanup issues and not deletion issues. My main concern is that I don't think it's sourceable, as I can find no evidence that it actually exists. If it's a real movie in production, then there'll be something about it to show notability. Even an independent film will have some coverage upon release, if it's notable. There's none of that here. Mr. Depp's involvement is not sufficient for notability, as there appear to be no sources to prove it. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete another day, another poorly written hoax by bored college students. Arcticle proclaims movie will make millions because "Johnny Depp pwns lives" (wrong use of word) and movie is proclaimed to be simply Johnny Depp reading a phone book. I know with the WGA strike, studios are desperate for screenplays (despite the fact they have hundreds stockpiled), but not this desperate Doc Strange (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not an actual feature length film. It is a proposed film, an idea for a film. It most certainly exists, however, and should not be deleted.Caseyrose707 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Then surely you won't have a problem showing actual sources to confirm its existence. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? There's no reason for sources if he only proclaims it's a mere idea - "proposed film" according to Caseyrose707 - that's never been made and most likely never will. No sources were found anywhere. No IMDB page (if it exists it would be there), no relevant google hits, no Google News hits. Doc Strange (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability -- the article appears to be a hoax with no such genuine headline involving Johnny Depp. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is in fact a hoax. I tripped over this by accident and thought you all would like to be informed that it started with a joke topic made by someone on the Sweeney Todd boards over at IMDb and one of the people involved apparently thought it would be "cute" to make a wiki page for something that does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.3.32 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
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.