Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn as being in the box office top 10 is now a standalone notability guideline. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name

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

Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Was merged months ago to Bleach (manga), but has since been reverted under the claim that its being released is enough to exist and has to be taken to AfD. Article adds no validly sourced information not already better covered in main Bleach article. Name is invalid as film is not licensed in English and has no official English name. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no reviews, and certainly not at least two by any nationally known critics. No awards. Nothing. Note, asking primarily to have it deleted then recreated as a redirect as a likely search term. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Thank you Colectonian for taking it into a proper discussion forum (now that we have run out of revert-to-redirect's on main article :). Reasons for notability: 1) #2 or #3 in Japanese 10 Ten Boxoffice hits during its release week; in Top 10 for 5 weeks 2) part of the major franchise 3) It seems no less notable and no less referenced than the 2nd movie, which I don't see had any issues with notability, and to be honest, the same holds true for the 1st movie, who has a few more refs due to to the English DVD release. Further, the 2nd movie was created several months before the movie hit the screens; the same is true for the 1st one. What makes the third movie different? 4) the article for this movie was created several times in this and other (now redirected) articles over the past few months, by several editors independently, indicating a popular demand (and need...) for this article (and then redirected by Collectonian...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point out reasons for notability that are actually noted as criteria per Wikipedia guidelines, and not your personal views. Box office rankings are not among those. Nor is the existence of the other two film articles a valid keep reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and it should be noted that merging of the other two films WAS discussion, but kept separate as they have been released in English as well and reviewed by multiple reliable sources, unlike this one). Also, please state the situation honestly. Articles for this film have been created under 3-4 different names (because there IS no official English name), and this has been reverted/redirected by MULTIPLE editors from the anime/manga project. Claiming I am the only one to redirect it is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and rather bad faith suggestion. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That the title is possibly wrong and/or can change when the movie is officially released is no reason to delete it. I think we may even have a proper template for it. When the official English title is out, a move will be simple. And my cursory glance and this and other articles/discussions indicates that you are the primary (but yes, not the sole) proponent of the unnotability argument for this movie. Not that I think this is important, everybody is entitled to their opinions here. I am not assuming any bad faith towards you, I am just assuming, based on your past history, that you are convinced that this movie is unnotable. I don't think you are going to dispute this assumption of mine? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm not the primary proponent, I'm just the one who happens to be online ridiculous amounts of times and usual notice it faster than most. And I believe the film fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. Hence its being properly merged to the main article, which contains all of the pertinent info. This new article adds nothing except perhaps the one line about the box office performance, which can easily be added to the main article. The film is not licensed at this time, and there is absolutely no guarantee it will be. Just because Viz licensed the first two doesn't mean they will do the third. The film has not received the appropriate and necessary significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. And we all know the old saying about "assumptions". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment First, is this the official title of the film? Because based on reliable sources, the official title is Bleach: Fade to Black - Kimi no Na o Yobu. Second, has this film been reviewed by two or more nationally recognized critics and can these reviews be provided? The rest of the coverage fails WP:NOTE for being trivial and WP:NF doesn't say anything about box office success. The fate of this article depends on those reviews as I don't see any of the other criteria in WP:NF being applicable. --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not, it isn't. Its the best guess translation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable based on its box office results mentioned at Anime News Network. Searching for the Japanese name for it, and whatever the Japanese name for box office results are, major newspapers will probably give some mention of it.  But its notable for being so well ranked in the box office of the second wealthiest nation in the world.  Guidelines are suggestions, not policy, that's why we can keep articles about bestselling novels and other things that are clearly notable, even if the guidelines don't currently have that listed as a reason to include things.   D r e a m Focus  02:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on box office results alone. With it doing that well, it is very likely there are articles in multiple magazines, newspapers, etc. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Query: Do I understand this right? You are asking the community to delete the edit history of an article that has been merged (and I suppose the merged content is still present in the merge-target article)? If that is so, then it would seem to me that this is the wrong forum. A split discussion should be held instead. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think technically it was split out from the main originally, of a sort. I use the term merged, but really, none of the content of the previous versions (under its many names) was moved over as it was pure plot, and the version in the article was written purely for that article. I'd also tend to agree, however Piotrus did not wish to allow such a discussion to occur and demanded it be taken to AfD, and after he filed an AN/I report complaining that multiple editors had reverted and asked him to discuss whether it should be resplit, the article is now here instead. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Never mind then. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the right place (I indeed requested it). This is not a request for deletion of history but a debate whether the article is notable or not (previously it has been redirected instead of AfDed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article['s history] should be deleted." -- Goodraise (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on the box office performance, reviews in reliable sources should exist. Any films that opens in the top 10 in the U.S. would have dozens of reviews and easily pass the notability guidelines for films, and I don't doubt that a film opening in the top 10 in Japan also has multiple reviews in reliable sources.  I think deleting articles like this one would be introducing bias, as the reason no one has found reviews is because users of the English language Wikipedia don't know where to look for reviews of Japanese films, not because reliable sources actually don't exist. Calathan (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it'd need to be bulked up with more information on the film. Afkatk (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Name "Bleach: Fade to Black" is on the official Japanese website and in the trailers so the claim that it doesn't have an English name appears false.  Looks expensive too, which means this likely will be released internationally soon enough.  jbolden1517Talk  04:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per that, its name is Bleach: Fade to Black without the rest. How does a movie "look expensive"? And how does that make it likely to be released internationally soon? Many many many anime films are never licensed and released anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If they spend a lot of money on something, they are more likely to try to promote it worldwide. Depends on how successful their release in other nations were for their other stuff also.   D r e a m Focus  05:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above - notable film which has amassed considerable box office success. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The box office success settles the score for this one. Sure that one must have got some serious coverage by Japanese Media that release was obviously too big to be overlooked. We need just someone fluent in Japanese to dig for sources. --KrebMarkt 06:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The box office success does it for me.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As Farix has already pointed out, to keep the article we need those reviews by "nationally recognized critics". Just because majority of people vote for keeping the article is no reason to keep the article. Even I would like to vote for the article because I'm a Bleach fan. But let's try to adhere to the policies mentioned in WP:NF. Considering the box office success, I'm sure there are more than two critics in Japan who would have reviewed the movie, but it will take someone who can understands japanese to find them and I don't understand Japanese. Can someone dig out such reviews? eZio (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in a case such as this, and given the box office numbers, the keep opinions are perfectly valid and acceptable, even if the reviews are not able to be located within the timeframe of the AfD. Because of the success of the film, it is entirely acceptable to assume that the articles and reviews exist, and due to the difficulty in finding such reviews by someone not within Japan, close it as keep and allow for a reasonable amount of time after the AfD to locate said reviews and articles. This plays again into the systemic bias mentioned already: because of the success, the reviews and articles should exist, and just because someone can't find English language reviews doesn't mean that other language reviews don't exist. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And no, we do not "need" those reviews... as they are just one of the listed attributes that "might" be indicative of notability. And of course, a "nationally recognized critic" in Japan, may likley not be "recognized" in the United States. That's why it is only an indicator, not an absolute.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not absolute, but since box office success is not that list (the reason for that has already been discussed on the WP:NF talk page), we need some other criteria to show the article's notability. If you can, please share another criterion which can justify not deleting the article. Also I don't think it matters if the critic is not recognized in United States. By national they're referring to the country in discussion. eZio (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It was merged before and split out because someone thought it should be. Whether it should be merged back or kept separately, is a discussion for WP:MRFD. Deletion is not the way to solve a disagreement on where to have content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This isn't the place for this discussion. yandman  12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion; if AfD isn't the place for it, where is? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; this film has been out since December, and in spite of repeated attempts to spin out a separate article for it, and repeated statements that reviews "must exist" because of the box office ratings, no such reviews have been shown to actually exist. Ordinarily, I'd probably !vote weak keep or userfy (actually, I would support userfication in this case), but there's a ridiculous amount of drama around this (wait... is that WP:POINTy?). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Weak keep - after Nihonjoe pointed out the 5-page spread in Animage. 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a 5 page article in the January 2009 issue of Animage. Based on that, it is extremely likely that there is a similar article in Newtype and other magazines as well, given how popular the Bleach series is and how well the movie did at the box office in Japan. As Animage is the only one I get out of those, I can't say whether any of the others have an article, but your assumption that there are no articles until someone shows you proof is a little off base for a show which did so well in the box office. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you add the Animage references to the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actually pointing to coverage, Joe. And please note that I wasn't assuming there was no coverage, but merely pointing out that, throughout all this splitting and remerging, no one had actually pointed to any. Needless to say, it would seem that my technique was successful. =) 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Dinoguy1000 (About the wiki-drama) I'm still laughing about how silly i'm. I view this Afd as a brilliant bureaucratic stonewalling with good sense turned-off. At best, even if it is deleted it will just bought 1 or 2 years before too many evidences of notability and licensing make it impossible to say it is not notable. Participating this Afd is outright close to useless because regardless the result this article will exist and stand unquestioned within two years, thanks to Bleach fanboys and fangirls. I'm participating this Afd because i read the word BIAS. --KrebMarkt 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for its independent notability (proven by the box office) and since this is not the right place for this discussion--a delete and redirect is too drastic to propose for an article with at least some notability. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above; I find notable now since it was successful in the box office.-- Super Silver  901 undefined 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Interested editors may want to comment on whether notability guideline on films should discuss box office rankings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to pile-on here, but keep per Eventualism and recommend withdraw. I'd defer deleting this for now; though the page doesn't technically pass notability as of now due to its lack of reviews, its box office success seems to imply that reviews will be forthcoming. I would assume that English reviews will also be most likely forthcoming upon an English release, which is inevitable due to the popularity of the manga series. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Food for thought, I did a Google News search and then a Google Translator with those sources....frankly, there really isn't anything there. I found a few hits on the name but that was typically in association with the company that made it. I couldn't find any actual reviews. Now, I only went through about a dozen links, and there were more there...if someone wants to actually go through more that would be good. Right now, it's not a good sign for the film. Notability for films, and the GNG are pretty clear. The onus is on the ones who want to keep this page to show that it is notable. We might not even have access to the any real sources to be able to have an English version of a Japanese subject. You have to remember that there are some subjects that don't have impacts outside of their domain (e.g., A Japanese movie getting no press in any English language country). That's why we have a Japanese Wikipedia, Where the article exists...with more information than here....though it isn't sourced so it's hard to see what can actually be used.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a couple of points, so bear with me. First, here are some potential sources: An interview with voice actors is apparently planned. Maybe something can be gleaned from this by a Japanese speaker. A comment from the lead voice actor, etc. Sources are slowly finding their way online, and I am willing to bet that sources will surely appear by the time the series is licensed in the US and released. Second, if I didn't specify this clearly enough in my vote, I have no prejudice against this coming to AfD again if sources do not materialize within a few months since I'm personally not convinced that merely placing on the box office is enough for notability. Third, it must be noted that sources do not have to be in English. There is a Wikiproject that fights against systemic bias for a reason. Completely irrelevant random factoid: the soundtrack if anybody wants to incorporate it into the article. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR  talk //  contribs 02:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @NocturneNoir I'm in the same line than you. Box office alone isn't enough for notability but the series antecedents made it near obvious that evidences of notability will eventually pile up. Deleting it will just give some respite for certain editors. The movie is heavily supported by TV Tokyo so source checking is muddy. --KrebMarkt 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Bignole Be careful wording your arguments as i interpreted one as 'It isn't translated in English so it doesn't deserve a place in the English Wikipedia' --KrebMarkt 06:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you actually read that gave you that interpretation, because nothing I said insinuated that.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep After Nihonjoe's reference in Animage, I see no reason to delete the article. eZio (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2009 (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. ''