Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight


 * 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 speedy keep. Max S em 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Princess Diaries Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm completing a nomination for an anon who's attempted two separate PRODs. According to the message left at my talk page, "It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google." The edit to the prior debate is here. Keep in mind, this was recently kept as a unanimous keep in February at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princess Diaries, Volume II: Princess in the Spotlight.


 * My personal opinion is keep as before. One of the most noteworthy series in young adult literature, highlight notable author, parts of the book were used for the second film in the series, it's a bestselling novel, plenty of reviews can be dug up, etc etc etc.  badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Too soon for another AFD. Possible bad faith forum shopping by nominator. - Richfife 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion given. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep If it's kept, there's no need to go to Google.  Gardener of Geda  | Message Me.... 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Bad faith nom by an anon. If it's been through an AFD last month, there's zero reason to PROD it. Cheers, Lankybugger 04:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep in light of recent previous AfD. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The following comment was placed on the previous AfD. I have no opinion, just copying moving it to where it belongs DMacks 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge I think deletion and/or a merge is necessary but you continue to delete any nomination for deletion I post. It is hardly a noteworthy book. Rather it is a book that is part of a noteworthy series. This page provides nothing except blatant plot summary and does not benefit Wikipedia at all. Clearly nobody has bothered to improve on it. Instead they create new pages for other books in the series with only one sentence descriptions. If someone needs a summary of every single book in this series, they can go to Google. 137.238.121.34 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Professionally published novels are inherently notable per the Novels WikiProject. If we start picking-and-choosing what we consider to be notable works then there are hundreds of other articles that might as well go to AFD, and to decide which ones should go would be a violation of WP:NPOV. 23skidoo 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Any of the books in the series is notable up through the present, as author Meg Cabot... is notable, as is the fact... her series has spawned two major Hollywood releases so far. - Denny 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep notable author, series and therefore book. Proposed deletion and AfD are not cleanup. --Canley 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep very obviously notable book, and part of a very notable series. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, obviously notable, no proper reason for AFD, do not use AFD for poor quality articles that desperately needs cleanup. Terence 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Taken from NOT: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. As it stands now, this article is just a plot summary. While that in itself is not a criterion for deletion, the article is in need of some repair before it becomes respectable. How long can it exist in its present state before action should be taken? -- Cyrus Andiron   t/c 15:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When I'm feeling rowdy, I usually remove the plot summaries until the articles can be expanded otherwise. I've been dealing with other things rather than the Princess Diaries as of late, but it's something that can be dealt with via editing - the article is still a functionally acceptable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 21 March 2007 (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.