Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn and the Frog Prince

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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn and the Frog Prince[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a story that was apparently never published, and which was apparently intended for but never used as a short film. I was unable to establish that this has any significant third-party coverage, whether it would be under WP:NBOOKS or WP:NFILM. And as it stands it is essentially an advertisement for the company that created it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just wasn't any coverage out there to show that anything about the film or story is notable. The only things that come up are primary sources, mentions of this via Wikipedia (linking to the article, in other words), and many junk hits. This is just borderline promotional enough to where it might be speedyable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It all sounds very lovely, but it never really existed. All the "references" are non-RS. If this is kept, can I start articles on all the novels I intended to write, but never got around to? Tigerboy1966 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After going through an extensive clean up, this possibly could have made for an interesting article about an unproduced film, but it just doesn't seem to be notable enough. Like everyone else, I've been unable to find any coverage by independent sources. --Jpcase (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unproduced film that sounds like it is no longer even planned to be a feature film, and thus normally would be ineligible for an article under WP:NFF. No independent sources have been provided that would indicate any notability under general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.