Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetie Pie (film)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweetie Pie (film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No proper sources to support this article. Also, no proof of existence. Lexon darkheart (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete hoax? or at least a non-existent film that once was added to imdb  Chzz  ►  01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting assertion of non-notability in the article about a film that included Paris Hilton in its cast? It began filming on March 12, 2000 in Malibu . It had its world premiere on June 14, 2002 at the Nodance Program in Hollywood .  Do the Hilton's own stock in Amazon or IMDB so as to get an embarassment removd?  No matter. Complete cast and crew can still be seen at Hollywood.com  and many other non-US sites. What strange bits and pieces might be found with some deep sleuthing for 2000-2003 news coverage of cast, crew, or production inre its infamy and dissappearance?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as Paris Hilton's first film as an adult (she did do a background bit in Wishman when she was 12). I have been able to add some sourcing to the article, but its not impressive. However, the assertion of it being her first film as an adult is a decent assertion of notability... far better than being removed from IMDB listings (as if anyone could use that for a source). A very diligent search in archives inre Paris and the film may bring gold.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not a hoax, but did anyone actually ever see the film? It sounds like a dreadful turkey that will never see the light of day again, and never had any significant coverage. Palm Pictures was supposed to distribute it, but there's nothing on their website about it. The only notability is Paris Hilton starring in it, but notability is not inherited. Fences and windows (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as the first film of the adult Hilton, it does qualify as notable, whether it was a bomb or not or whether family money quashed it as a turkey or not, and no matter who did or did not see it, as "firsts" do qualify per guideline as notable, if they can be properly verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. As per policy, an article about a film is notable as long as it either has coverage on websites other than user-editable websites like IMDB or has not commenced filming yet. And this NY Times article is more than enough to fulfil the coverage on other media condition. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That "NY Times article" is a stub giving barely any information. It isn't "significant coverage". Fences and windows (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do what I hate, and quote policy. This is from WP:NOTFILM:
 * It excludes "Trivial coverage", which would apply to the NY Times article.
 * As for it being OK as a "first", read the following criterion: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there". (emphasis added)
 * "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."
 * So there is no non-trivial coverage, it wasn't a major part of Paris Hilton's career, the details are not sufficient outside a brief mention in Paris Hilton, and it wasn't distributed and this failure wasn't notable. It fails notability on every criteria. Fences and windows (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here, as the film was completed and screened. And even if it never went into distribution, it being Paris' first credited role as an adult is easily verified.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * However, as their are 5 "notables" linked to the article who themselves have articles on Wikipedia... Jake Hoffman, Spencer Grammer, Paris Hilton, Cisco Adler, and Ginger Lynn... there might be an acceptable way to merge informations about this film to these 5 other articles. And such can be discussed on the talk page after a keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 12 May 2009 (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.