Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triple, double


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple, double

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

Delete fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. In addition to what's noted above, this article is also gazing heavily into the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nomination. No claim of notability. • Anakin (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete completely non-notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in double, no triple, time. The article actually says "there is no plot right now, but it's coming", in so many words, and "the protagonist is the leading character" (but never names him/her). Just that, the protagonist is the leading character.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability because it is not notable and they didn't want to lie, I guess. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Anakin101. JuJube (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that no valid criterion for speedy deletion has been given so far. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to delete under G11, Blatant Advertising, as a previous version of the article cited "Jonathan Reid" as one of the film's directors, and the author of the page is . The fact that the advertising is poorly executed at best hurts this argument, though... UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * G11/blatant advertising. Just because it doesn't say "TREMENDOUS SAVINGS!! MAKE MONEY FAST!! CLICK HERE!!" doesn't mean it isn't spam.  As an aside, I'd bet half a donut that if this ever comes out (assuming it even does) it'll be on youtube, thus making it A7/speediable web content.  Something tells me this isn't exactly destined for IMAX or anything. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this does not meet any speedy deletion criteria.  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What was the previous version deleted for? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a copy/paste of the Old School (film) article and was deleted as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - violates WP:Crystal and is not notable.  Gtstricky Talk or C 21:17, 21 February 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.