Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film)


 * 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 merge and redirect to Dragon Ball Z. Most people here consider the secondary sources mentioned reliable enough to mention the film, but in the context of the main Dragon Ball Z article for now, until/unless the film gains more notability. — TKD::Talk 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z (film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The creation of this article was not based on fact but on mere rumors on the internet. 20th Century Fox has never confirmed that the movie would be made, and they have released a statement in which they specifically refused to confirm the so-called new "info" from the Montreal Gazette on which this article is based. Currently, there's nothing substanciated about this supposed DB movie. Another rumor has popped up on the net last week (as dozens have, during the last 6 years), but it is not enough to revive this article. Currently no one -not even Fox- can confirm the allegations of the article from the Montreal Gazette, and until more concrete and official elements are made public, it remains a possible hoax. So, according to 2 criteria in the "reasons for deletion" policy ("Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed"), the article should be deleted Folken de Fanel 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

you are pretty good at lying, because last time i checked, variety is a reliable source. just because you don't think that it is a reliable source doesn't mean that it isn't a reliable fource. Opinions and facts are two totally different things. plus, that comment you left on my usertalk page was completly innapropriate. i haven't been lying, if anything, you have. stop personally attacking people. -cman7792
 * "You are pretty good at lying": sounds like a personal attack ! ;)
 * So, just because you think Variety is a reliable source doesn't mean it is reliable (don't forget, "and facts are two totally different things"). I'm saying what I've been saying from the beginning: nothing, in 3 years, has come to support Variety's claims...Thus, it should be handled carefully. Now, where are the so-called lies in that ?
 * The comments I've made to your talk page are absolutely appropriate, considering your behavior. Now, it seems you're mistaken, this Afd was not made so that you could post personal (and harmful) comments about me: you should change the tone of your contribs here.Folken de Fanel 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

my behavior, whatever i wont even go there but it is funny that you say that. the adf page is for fact on wether the dragonballz live action film article should be merged or not, no one cares about your personal feelings. if there is something you want to say, say it on my discussion page, not here --Cman7792 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the article should be deleted or merged or kept. Not only "merged", this is an AfD, Article for Deletion...Concerning personal feelings, I hope you realize no one cares about yours either...Folken de Fanel 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom says it all -- this article fails WP:RS and WP:V. Supposed film is nothing but rumor. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now. Merge all veriafiable info to a new section on Dragon Ball Z. Logical enough of a move until the film enters production. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if it is a rumor, than it could be fixed later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs)
 * Merge all verifiable content (prior to the Montreal Gazette coverage) to a "Live-action film adaptation" section at Dragon Ball Z. Per notability guidelines for films, there can be a stand-alone article for the film when it enters production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

-cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not true anymore. at first, the origonal movie was rumors, but now it is confirmed to be filmed in montreal. the montreal gazzeter, newsletter of montreal, and other actual sources like ign confirmed this. this article on the dragonballz film should not be deleted, but merged with the dragonballz article.
 * Comment: You're completely wrong. Fox refused to confirm what's in the Montreal Gazette article, which, until further notice, remains another hoax. By the way, IGN are merely reporting what the M.G. said and don't "confirm" anything (they have no ability to confirm anything since they're not involved in any way with the hypothetical production of the movie. Besides, it's IGN who reported that Fox didn't confirm). This article should be deleted, because based on unconfirmed rumors, no matter how hard some contributors here "want to believe"...As for a merge with the general DBZ article, I don't see enough concrete element to justify any mention of this.Folken de Fanel 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see enough concrete. This page could be deleted after the dragonballz live action film info is put into the dragonall z page. one of the sections on the page would be dragonballz live action film. that would be a merge and this is what we all want. you could have your opinion but you are looking for the wrong thing. -cman7792
 * There has been nothing concrete, Fox never confirmed they would make a DBZ movie, they just bought the right and that's all. There won't be anything on a DBZ live movie on the DBZ page, since there's no DBZ live movie.Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is alot of concrete. fox refused to comment on the montreal newspaper because they probably would like to announce it in a better way. if fox wasn't going to make the movie, they would of denied the news, not by not commenting. this article should be merged for now--Cman7792 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. i heard this page is being considered for deletion. this page should not be deleted, but merged with the dragonballz article. -cman7792 (moved from here) Editor has made direct recommendation below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment there is not enough to merge once the unsubstanciated rumors are removed...Folken de Fanel 20:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What unsubstanciated rumors. The stuff about the dragonball z live action movie being filmed in montreal is true. Get your facts straight. you want proof that it is true. the montreal gazzeter which is an official newpaper in montreal canada claims it. i could picture the movie being made in montreal. this way fox doesn't have to pay as much taxes on the film-cman7792 Look, Folken de Fanel, everyone wants this film to be merged with the dragonballz page besides you. Look how many people agree with me rather than you:
 * 1) The article in the Montreal Gazette has not been confirmed by Fox (that's quite the contrary). Until an official statement is made by Fox, the article is just another bogus report. Now, what you want to believe about the reality of the movie doesn't matter here, i hope you can understand that. No reliable and verified source, no article, that's all. Your beliefs alone won't do it.
 * 2) Don't start with things like "look how many people agree with me". Anyone reading this page will see the obvious...Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, i don't personally attack people. But the point is that it was confirmed by montreal that the movie would be filmed there. all you care about is that fox didn't officially anounce it, but they would of denied it if it wasn't true. you have to look at more than one fact. stop being so black and white. --Cman7792 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's you who're personnally attacking me, by spreading lies, claiming that I would be "harassing" (?) you, saying "awful" (?) things, while I have never personally attacked you. Where do you see any "attack" ? Unless if you can't stand people having a different opinion than yours, taking it "personally" when they are sceptic about a supposed movie in which you want to believe, I don't see any problem.
 * Anyway, if you're trying to get me blocked just to take your revenge because I'm "daring" to be realistic about this so-called DB movie (I saw your "report" on the admin board), then you should know that it could very well backfire to you, and making up false claims of harassments and insults just like you did on the admin board can only make your situation worse.
 * Finally, no, any "news", particularly on the so-called DB movie, should be handled with caution, and without any confirmation by Fox, should be seen as a potential hoax. Concerning the Montreal Gazette article, it was denied by Fox. Folken de Fanel 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The following headlines exist:
 * These items can be incorporated into a "Live-action film adaptation" section in the source material's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the article about Fox buying the right is valid, the rest is just unconfirmed allegations just like the article that appeared recently. However, since we haven't heard officially from the movie for five years (and Fox never actually confirmed they would make the movie) I consider this highly non-notable for WP.Folken de Fanel 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the Variety article not valid? Publicized intention to make a film out of a franchise is notable enough for a mention in the article of the source material.  Please see articles like Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), The Flash (film), The Jetsons (film), Jurassic Park IV, Knight Rider (film), Land of the Lost (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film), Voltron (film), Warcraft (film), et cetera.  It's completely appropriate to mention that a project was previously in the making -- it's part of a franchise's history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Variety article was never ever confirmed by official sources. There has never been anything about the movie (there was, about the rights, but not about an actual movie) from Fox, and since 2002 there has been so many bogus reports from various internet sources, that now anything not direcly from Fox is not to be trusted. And we've seen another proof of this recently, with the Montreal Gazette article as good as denied by Fox.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the Variety article not valid? Publicized intention to make a film out of a franchise is notable enough for a mention in the article of the source material.  Please see articles like Fahrenheit 451 (2008 film), The Flash (film), The Jetsons (film), Jurassic Park IV, Knight Rider (film), Land of the Lost (film), Logan's Run (2010 film), Spy Hunter: Nowhere to Run, Street Fighter (2008 film), Voltron (film), Warcraft (film), et cetera.  It's completely appropriate to mention that a project was previously in the making -- it's part of a franchise's history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Variety article was never ever confirmed by official sources. There has never been anything about the movie (there was, about the rights, but not about an actual movie) from Fox, and since 2002 there has been so many bogus reports from various internet sources, that now anything not direcly from Fox is not to be trusted. And we've seen another proof of this recently, with the Montreal Gazette article as good as denied by Fox.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read Variety. It is an official trade paper and The Hollywood Reporter's competitor.  It completely qualifies as a reliable source, and there is zero reason to dismiss it.  In addition, the project was apparently not "denied" by the studio -- per IGN, "This report cannot be confirmed as neither start dates nor locations are locked in at this point."  This is not a denial in the strictest sense, and the author of the Montreal Gazette must have gotten potential information from somewhere.  Calling it a hoax without any explanation is not warranted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is all the reasons to dismiss it entirely since it is not official in any way and not affiliated with Fox or with any movie studio, and Fox has never confirmed the Variety article. Your personal interpretations of Fox words is irrelevant at this point, the Montreal Gazette is just another bogus report until Fox officially announce the movie themselves. Since the Gazette article was used to re-created this DB movie article on WP, then deletion is the only option since it's not a reliable source which could not be verified. If the only elements are internet gossips, then this article must be deleted. Using denied allegations to create articles is not warranted either.Folken de Fanel 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources like Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are completely acceptable under reliable source criteria. WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  A primary source like the studio itself is not what is requested.  Since you are lacking understanding about trade papers, these are the papers through which studios reveal news -- take a look at the film section.  I used the wording that IGN used about the project, where there was no form of "denial" used -- that was your own interpretation.  I merely pointed out that there was no clear-cut denial of the project.  Considering the availability of two trade papers and a newspaper (not Internet gossip), it is notable enough to make mention of the history of this project.  Like I've recommended, it should be done at Dragon Ball Z. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Variety is not a reliable source, since the article about a so-called DB movie has never been fact checked and remains unconfirmed by Fox. It a 3 year old article than never proved itself true by actual movie development. I'm not "lacking understanding", I'm just realistic, if studios want to reveal news, they have their own means to do so. External websites are often based on gossips, rumors, fake sources, etc. Considering there's nothing official, nothing confirmed on the subject, only internet gossips and possibly bogus reports, there won't be anything here, until Fox officially confirm they're making the movie.Folken de Fanel 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete confirmation of a possible DBZ movie is not likely, only Internet gossip at this point. Is that Variety article the only possible source? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is The Hollywood Reporter article from March 2002. I don't support the existence of this article at all, but this project actually had form at one point and should be mentioned in the article of the source material. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The project had no "form" at any point, Fox just bought the right almost 6 years ago, and they did nothing with it. An actual production process was never mentioned. The Variety article was just another unconfirmed rumor. That's why there isn't anything notable in it for WP.Folken de Fanel 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Variety is a trade paper with enough credibility to qualify as a reliable source. There is no reason to doubt its content, and the information should be included at Dragon Ball Z. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, it has no credibility whatsoever, because none of its info was confirmed either by statements from Fox, or by actual movie material released to the public. All the reports about the so-called movie have been proven bogus, and Fox itself never confirmed a movie was being made: in this circumstances, anything not from Fox is not reliable.Folken de Fanel 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There is literally no information in the article in question; in fact the article consists of a single paragraph which itself states that the information is unconfirmed. Unconfirmed=non-verifiable. HalfShadow 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The gazetter is a real source, so as the hollywood reporter. Newspapers and the nespaper's websites don't lie. the author must of gotten the information from somewhere. besides, fox never never denied that the film is in work. they just didn't say who the director is yet because they don't have a director yet, nor do they have a script, unless if they used the old one from 5 years ago when the film get cancelled when the film was in pre production. once fox hires people to work on the movie, more information will be revealed. add the info from dragonball z live action film to dragonallz article for now and if it turns out that it is a rumor, then it could be deleted. -cman7792''


 * All this is pure unsubstanciated speculation. And yes, Newspapers and the newspaper's websites can lie. Welcome to the real world.22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

funny how you claim that all the newspapers are lying about this movie. newspapers don't copy each other, they get information from RELIABLE sources. but enough about newspapers. you can't prove they are lying, and most of the time newspapers don't lie. Now lets get back on topic. Add the dragonballz live action film info into the dragonballz article now, and if it turns up that it was just a rumor then it could be deleted.
 * Newspaper are not the Absolute Truth, far from that. A reliable source in that case is Fox, and there has never been any statement from Fox about a movie. We don't care how bad you want the DB movie to be real, Wikipedia is not based on the assumptions of its contributors, it's based on verifiable facts. Rumors cannot be verified so they're not in the articles, that how WP works.Folken de Fanel 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   —Farix (Talk) 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dragon Ball Z - this is an obvious merge. Article has some sources but the subject is not yet notable enough fr its own article-- Cailil   talk 23:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Filming has not begun, should not have its own article (notability guidelines). Hal peridol 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - The information is cited by reliable secondary sources, which is what Wikipedia asks for. Is the film going to be made, maybe/maybe not. It certainly isn't in production at the moment, and there isn't enough information to warrant separation. It will be better placed on the DBZ page until such time that it will be appropriate to separate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - It hasn't begun filming yet, and for now, who nows, it might not even be made. Merge to the Dragon Ball page for now-- $U IT  00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge  the verifiable content into Dragon Ball Z per above. Suitable for an non-notable film. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 07:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep BrenDJ 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why you think it should be kept? Per notability guidelines for films, stand-alone articles should be created when the film enters production.  As you can see from the article's information, that is questionable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to be true because IMBD has a page for the movie see more info here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/ . IMBD would never post flase info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * IMDb is actually not considered a reliable source because it is user-submitted. Additionally, even if IMDb has a page about a film, this does not mean the film will come out.  For example, a film adaptation of The Giver was pursued in 1994, but the film still has not entered the production stage all this time, despite having a page at IMDb, which is as old as 2004.  Announced projects do not necessarily equate the immediate production of a film -- this lag is called development hell.  The Spider-Man films have been in development since the 1980s.  The resurrection of the new Superman and Batman films took longer than anticipated, too.  Hope this makes sense -- it's just the nature of the industry to pick up rights whenever possible to produce a film, but there are many factors that stop a project from advancing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

--Cman7792 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The info about dbz being filmed in montreal seems to be true. just add this article into a dragongallz live action film on the dragonballz page for now
 * Merge per above, it is somewhat too early for a proper article and relatively little info has been confirmed.--JForget 22:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP I can't find anything that causes deletion of this article. I think there're so much well-based info (more than rumors) that it's very fool thinking that is false or poor-based. I vote against its deletion. --S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about merging it to Dragon Ball Z, since per notability guidelines for films, articles shouldn't exist until a film enters production? All the content is kept, and when the film enters production, the article can be stand-alone again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP It seems you should do less arguing over deletion and focus on the information that you do have. There is no way this movie is not going to be made. Right now they have the other super hero movies coming out and DBZ would tank next to Ironman or the Spiderman movies. The demand for the movie will increase if we catalog the information we do have and project our anticiption of the film. The fact that the film is not yet in production shouldn't matter as much as the intent of making the movie as evidenced by Fox's purchase of the rights. It should also be noted that I friggin love me some DBZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.206.224.50 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is speculative reasoning at best. Just because of the surge of films does not guarantee that a superhero-esque film will be made.  The Superman Returns sequel is on hold until after Bryan Singer finishes Valkyrie.  Spider-Man 4 is not being fast-tracked to production, since nobody has decided what they want to do.  Ant-Man, Captain America, The Flash, and other projects still have not entered production after a number of years.  The article reflects that the studio disputes the report of the film entering production, so at best, the content should be merged to Dragon Ball Z.  If the film does enter production, the article can be re-created. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thisis also fairly bizarre reasoning. Wikipedia does NOT exist to influence studio decisions, this is NOT a fan-site. You seem to think that Wikipedia should be used to show interestin the film. No, it most certainly should NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, whether you're expounding on the virtues of communism, anarchism, kool-aid, or dragonball Z movies. ThuranX 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Dragon Ball Z. This article fails notability, but I do not think that all information should be deleted. Carlosguitar 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redir. Above commenters have already summed up a number of good reasons including time since sources, quality of sources, lack of action, that the content is smaller and verifiable now but without a rudder the project's jsut a footnote on DBZ, etc., etc. Merge it. ThuranX 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - Reliable sources can be inaccurate, and sometimes repeat rumors which turn out not to be true. We are not, however, blindly bound to follow them when it becomes apparent their speculation is unfounded.  Reliable sourcing is necessary for the attribution of a statement; it is not sufficient for surety that said statement is encyclopedic, or even true.  --Haemo 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Other sites like Comeingsoon.net said it true. 20th Century Fox has confirmed movies that where in the montreal like Night at the Museum 2. So it must be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk • contribs) 21:15, September 13, 2007


 * Just because one project is confirmed doesn't mean the others are. The studio has not officially confirmed that this project will enter production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 14 September 2007 (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.