Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel: The Biggest Little Hero


 * 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) st170e talk 00:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Axel: The Biggest Little Hero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable film, no reliable independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Cursory search indicates no independent coverage or viewerbase. I agree with deletion as the nominator is right in stating that notability has not been established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoPenguin (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)  — CycoPenguin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * TO I am sorry to have to state this, but your "cursory search" has been easily and thoroughly refuted. You offered an early opinion about THIS, but in looking further, I found quite a bit more, and thus improved the article accordingly to better serve Wikipedia and its readers. I invite you to take a look at the improved article and perhaps modify your stance. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well I think that this article has some chance to get notice, the article just needs more time, besides, it's obvious that we're getting ahead of ourselves to delete this amazing article this soon, cause to be frank, it's too soon, ya know?! :/ NJOrozco 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Then it would be covered under WP:TOOSOON, wouldn't it be? Sources have yet to be found that demonstrate that the film in question is noteworthy. Cyanhat (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 07:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep ever though a film for toddlers, and more than the multiple reviews found under its current title, under its original title Bonta 3D it is also sourcable. Needs more work not deletion.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Reply: Yeah, I agree, which is I suggest that we should marge the 2 articles instead of deleting this one, that way we have the info, and the sourse that we need for this article, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge it with...what? --Jpcase (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, so I don't that there's an article od this, Bonta 3D, meaning merging the one that's about to be deleted, and the one that doesn't exist, it really isn't going to happen, so all we have to do is to fine some sources and hope for the best! :/ NJOrozco 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:MOVIE at the very least, having independent and complete reviews. Kind of mundane at the moment, but I don't think deletion is necessary. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Definitely not necessary indeed! ;) NJOrozco 06:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article clearly meets WP:GNG, per refs recently added by MichaelQSchmidt. If someone wants to move it to Bonta 3D, then I wouldn't oppose that, but there's certainly enough coverage to justify having an article on this film. --Jpcase (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 18:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to & : The fact that it had a different earlier Anglified title Bonta 3D with its Chinese release is mentioned in the current article. But that name gives MANY false positives in searches.  It is far more easily searchable and sourcable under current title of Axel: The Biggest Little Hero, and a move to the earlier title would be a deficit to readers, not a benefit. HOWEVER, a redirect link the redlink Bonta 3D to current sourced title can be easily created.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to : OK, I see you're point that you're trying to make here, but our point still stands, ya know! :/ NJOrozco 05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt:


 * Update found some great production background.  Not just a direct-to-video, the film had wide theatrical release in China in August of 2013. Just took digging.    Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply to : That's great to hear good buddy, hope that we'll fine more sourses ike this one! ;) NJOrozco 05:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was the early tweaks by that got me interested in going further. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's good to know! :) NJOrozco 14:17, 28 May 2016 (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.