Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange Juice Paradise


 * 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. Wily D 09:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Orange Juice Paradise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film. No evidence that such a film exists, or has ever been conceived. Likely WP:HOAX although the page author insists he "saw it on tv". WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't even exist on IMDB let alone anywhere reputable. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a hoax.Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep have the 'delete' people answered how I could see it on television in July if its a so-called hoax? Ummm...NOOOOOOOOO! And as for being non-notable? Well it was on TV. Do non-notable things get aired on mainstream television. Ummm.. typically NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you provide references to prove that the film is notable, such as links by INDEPENDANT news sources? Piandcompany (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with criteria given by WikiDan61. Piandcompany (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Another comment that fails to answer my two simple questions. And by the way, one of the 'delete' voters tried to remove "American pornograhpic films" category when the film reeks of nude females of a sexual nature in strip clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia does not rely upon the "I saw it" of one random person on the internet. Anyone can say that they saw anything.  It really holds no significance.  You need to be able to provide sourcing showing that it exists, and that it meets the project's notability criteria.  Personally, I would not be surprised if it did exist.  But unless you can give us sourcing, you're facing a losing battle here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask the TV people about it? Can't remember which channel it was but if was definitley July 26 because my accountant came for dinner that night and he said he had seen the film before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs)
 * Since you're the one telling us to keep, it's up to you to supply the source, not us. Especially because we cannot find any, in any listing or in any sources.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G3 as a blatant hoax. Facially ludicrous, despite the continued claims to the contrary. If this existed, or indeed if Ryan Slater had a directorial debut in any form, it would be trivially easy to source. It is not, because he hasn't, and this doesn't. Frankly, aside from the fact that this is a textbook G3, its creator's insistence on categorizing it as an "American pornographic film" is potentially troublesome regarding the claimed roles of real actual people, for BLP reasons. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * but what do you call nudity of a sexual nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldEdward2012 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the category on BLP grounds, and will warn the editor of BLP violations if they further insist on re-adding it. As unsourced as this thing is, that one factoid cannot remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. A hoax, although I don't blame the nominator for bringing it here; it's not an absolutely obvious one.  Ubelowme U  Me  22:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I brought it here because the page had been speedied, declined, PROD'ed and declined again. But it needed to be dealt with.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, I should have been more clear.  I wouldn't personally have tagged it as "db-hoax", is what I should have said.  I am glad it's here; it can be dealt with conclusively, and I appreciate its having been nominated.  Ubelowme U  Me  22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for speedy deletion as a blatent hoax, the article's creator removed the speedy template, it wasn't declined.Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A hoax; I find no such move searching the net. Churn and change (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources have been provided, and I can't find any myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I saw the article & the plot sounds like a joke. Corn cheese (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we invoke WP:SNOW here and get this discussion ended quickly? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hoax. No sources to be found. I agree with WikiDan61 about invoking WP:SNOW. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a hoax. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. People May 22, 2005 mentions, "TODAY the Scottish Premiership will be decided between fierce rivals Celtic and Rangers. But even by Old Firm standards, the banning of Eggs Benedict from the Ibrox menu because of the new Pope's name is pushing it a little too far. What next? Celtic banning orange juice from Paradise?" Not relevant to the AfD nominated topic, but I posted it anyway. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2012 (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.