Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alyson Stoner Project


 * 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. The page contains zero WP:RS sources, and there is nothing really to userfy as the info simply duplicates IMDB at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Alyson Stoner Project
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unconfirmed project which only gets 220 G-hits and the usual 'it might be out' IMdB cite. From what I could find, it seems like a web-only exercise video or dance video.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Cunard (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. At least for now, could be covered by a brief mention in the Alyson Stoner article. --Delirium (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like a failed movie deal with an attached dreamcasting. ThuranX (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Alyson Stoner or WP:Userfy. Bring back when principle filming has begun. The fan base alone for this character will assure WP:GNG and WP:NFF... then.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy, with note in closure where the article has been moved too. Everyone here makes it sound like once the filming has begun, another editor will magically have access to the delete history. We all know that is not the case. So the editor will have to recreate what these twenty five editors have already created. Yes, twenty five editors have edited this article since it was created.travb (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25 editors and it's in this state? That's a shame. I don't think there's any content yet that makes a userfication neccesary, but I don't oppose one either. Let's see what the major edit it is undergoing will bring. - Mgm|(talk) 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of editors are indicative of the character's popularity... but there is just not enough about the film itself yet to merit its own article. The "In Use" tag has been removed. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 11 January 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.