- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 2: Attack of the Mecha-Vulcan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable work, ANN's encyclopedia which is user-edited, and Imdb (in this case) are not reliable sources here. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC) )
- Keep The current state of sourcing is not sufficient reason to delete (see WP:NRVE). A quick search of authoritative databases finds entries in Kinenote [1], the Japanese Cinema Database [2] created by the Agency for Cultural Affairs, and the MPPAJ database [3]. It was distributed nationally by Toei, one of the big three Japanese studios. It's hard to find film reviews of kids movies, but Kinenote indicates that it was featured in the October 15, 2005, issue of Kinema Jumpo. A search of the Oya Soichi databases shows that it was featured in the August 2005 issue of Animage and the July 2005 issue of Seiyu Grand Prix. Finally, it was in the box office top ten when the film was released [4]. Michitaro ( talk) 02:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with highlighting databases is that the whole point of them is to collect data on everything, they do not demonstrate notability, even if they do include critical commentary (although such commentary can of course still be used). Kinema is a good place to check but how substantial is the coverage? Is it a feature or just a brief news item? The same goes for the other sources you mention. As for box office, it certainly helps but a single week appearing at number 8 is not by itself indicative of notability. As for the validity of the nomination I don't see the issue, your wikilink of choice can be used just as much to support it's nomination than to discredit it. You've provided possible evidence of notability, but at the moment it doesn't "show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". A single week of box office at number 8 could certainly come under a result of short term interest. I'm largely playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's hardly clear cut.
SephyTheThird (
talk)
04:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I understand, but since the nominator cited unreliable sources as a reason for deletion, I cited reliable sources. I have also proved national distribution, which is a key factor in
WP:NF. The problem is the degree of coverage.
WP:NF asks for at least two reviews, but as I noted, that is not always easy to find for kids films (one could claim bias here) or for a film released ten years ago (again our tendency to rely on net sources we can find now). KineJun and Animage are both major national periodicals in their field, but since they can't be searched online, one would have to go the paper copies to evaluate them. Until these can be checked, I am making the reasonable assumption that these two satisfy the conditions in
WP:NF.
Michitaro (
talk)
04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion regarding this article but if there is a consensus to keep this I think that we should look into undeleting the article for the first film that was proded several weeks back.-- 64.229.166.239 ( talk) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I understand, but since the nominator cited unreliable sources as a reason for deletion, I cited reliable sources. I have also proved national distribution, which is a key factor in
WP:NF. The problem is the degree of coverage.
WP:NF asks for at least two reviews, but as I noted, that is not always easy to find for kids films (one could claim bias here) or for a film released ten years ago (again our tendency to rely on net sources we can find now). KineJun and Animage are both major national periodicals in their field, but since they can't be searched online, one would have to go the paper copies to evaluate them. Until these can be checked, I am making the reasonable assumption that these two satisfy the conditions in
WP:NF.
Michitaro (
talk)
04:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with highlighting databases is that the whole point of them is to collect data on everything, they do not demonstrate notability, even if they do include critical commentary (although such commentary can of course still be used). Kinema is a good place to check but how substantial is the coverage? Is it a feature or just a brief news item? The same goes for the other sources you mention. As for box office, it certainly helps but a single week appearing at number 8 is not by itself indicative of notability. As for the validity of the nomination I don't see the issue, your wikilink of choice can be used just as much to support it's nomination than to discredit it. You've provided possible evidence of notability, but at the moment it doesn't "show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". A single week of box office at number 8 could certainly come under a result of short term interest. I'm largely playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's hardly clear cut.
SephyTheThird (
talk)
04:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Alt:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Alt:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Japanese:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Transliterated:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Michitaro - the film certainly meets N and the current state of the article is more due to a lack of development and the language barrier than for other subjects and areas. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Strong KeepIn Anime A History, Jonathan Clements discusses it's budget, poor performance at the box office and that despite it's failure it served as both direct and indirect promotion for the brand. Critical commentary and analysis in what is essentially a formal dissertation by a known expert is worth much more than listing articles no one has even seen that we can't judge the appropriateness of (announcements don't count). The article does need a severe change in plot summary length but I'm not the person to do it. I will however add a summary of Clement's commentary in due course. I should note that i found the coverage completely by chance while looking through the book for a completely different subject, it's not an obvious title to be found in english language coverage. However, I don't see any reason to restore the article for the first film unless similar coverage can be found. SephyTheThird ( talk) 21:27, 6 March 2015 (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.