Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls: The Rise to Fame


 * 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. This version of the article is sheer fan speculation. I also took a look at the creator's edit history, and there is a pattern of adding unsourced/speculative information to other articles. I'm going to invoke WP:SNOW here and close the debate early, especially given the fact that Wikipedia is the only significant Google hit, and I don't want us being the bearer of false news any longer than necessary. If this proves out to be the title of the fourth movie, then an article can be created - later, after reliable sources are available. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cheetah Girls: The Rise to Fame

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DCFan101 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (with qualification). Some things are/can be notable before their release, if they're being built up with a great deal of "buzz". For a random example off the top of my head, the upcoming computer game Diablo 3 would qualify, as it's already become quite a lightning rod even before its release. In my opinion, at present, this article does not establish any "buzz", but if it does, you may consider my suggestion switched to "keep". - Vianello (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia can, and regularly does, host articles about unreleased upcoming products. The real issue here is that notability needs to be established. — Latischolar talkcontributions 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Geez, The Cheetah Girls: One World has yet to appear (though it's getting a lot of promo action on the Disney Channel). This supposed entry in the series gets exactly zero non-WP ghits. Possible hoax? Deor (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. No Ghits other than Wikipedia, no sources included in the article, so this is utterly unverifiable. Fannish speculation, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX, take your pick, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia until there's something from a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible hoax but blatantly fails WP:NFF regardless. PC78 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just reverted a premature close of this debate. Since the AfD has barely been open four hours, I think it's a bit premature to close it as a delete under WP:SNOW. IMO, I don't think the article is so bad faith a creation that it can be speedy deleted as a blatant hoax (G3). —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there are no sources anywhere to verify the existence of this future movie, let alone any notability for the future movie. Steve Crossin   (contact)  13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I just did a Google search. The top result was this article(stub really) while everything below it was Disney Channel related but was about other stars' rises to fame. And again WP:CRYSTAL no sources anywhere and wouldn't "rise to fame" be going back before the first movie? A blatant hoax as well.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 15:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Where's an admin when you need one?-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec, elucidating the comment immediately above) Comment. I've again reverted an attempted closure of the discussion. Xp54321, only an admin can close a discussion as "delete", since only an admin is empowered to follow through by actually deleting the article. Deor (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How confident are you that the article is a blatant hoax? —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty confident. It seems like more like fan speculation though or something else.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 16:25, 8 July 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.