Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatchaman (2011 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   Keep nom withdraw and several sources/info added. (WP:NACD) C T J F 8 3  chat 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gatchaman (2011 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

DELETE. This film will undoubtedly be notable if and when it is ever released, but right now it is just WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation by a bunch of blogs, hoping it will meet its projected 2011 release date. JBsupreme ( talk ) 07:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my delete !vote (see below) -- the title of this article is problematic as the film has had one setback after another with regards to release dates, and the odds are that 2011 might not be the year for this one. In any case, if it is kept separate or merged that is an editorial decision and this material will need to be preserved in some form or another if it is merged and redirected.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to satisfy CRYSTAL to me. Would be notable if released; is not empty prediction based on scientific, numerical, or future history; is not far in the future (2011 is pretty close); is sourced to at least 2 RSs (with articles, even) as well as all the 'blogs' JBsupreme is clearly using as a pejorative; and would surely be notable if released. And the list of sourcing & coverage is far from exhaustive: I see sources like AICN or Variety when I look in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=gatchaman+2011+movie --Gwern (contribs) 16:39 28 January 2010 (GMT)

*Merge per Krebmarkt. 'would be notable if released' is future tense, and as Krebmarkt points out, it may never be completed. Sounds like an admission it's not notable now. In fact Crystal refers to only including future events if they are almost certain to take place, which is a questionable claim to make given KrebMarkt's arguements. As it stands now, theres no real notability for an article based on it's current info, just the announcement it is, or maybe made is hardly real coverage that supports a standalone article. Merge the content to Gatchaman, then restore the page if, and when it becomes notable through proper discussion by reliable sources. The claim that any movie with x budget is going to be made is laughable, if the studio can't complete it, they can't complete it - no matter how much they've spent on it. If anything it's likely to drag the studio down with it when they run out of money. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge 2-3 sentences into Gatchaman with sources upgrades using Anime News Network related news pages. If you check the chronology and the contents of the news, whatever the release will be postponed again remain in question because the studio may not survive long enough. Blame the lack of success of Astroboy movie. For that reason i clearly don't think a spint-out article now is wise. I will however support re-creation when a dead set and confirmed release date will be available. Year 2010 just won't do. --KrebMarkt 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Revised to Keep enough verifiable contents expansion warranting the existence of the article. I also agree that changing the article name will be good to reflect better its contents focused mostly on the production studio setbacks. --KrebMarkt 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The coverage Gwern links to seems sufficient. The article says it was released in Japan in 2010, and set to be released in America in 2011.  But the article says it is scheduled to be completed in 2011.  Any movie with more than a hundred million dollars for its budget, is going to be made, and get plenty of press.   D r e a m Focus  05:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you really read all the informations, the movie is not finished yet and the studio laid of 100 animators. --KrebMarkt 07:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually this sort of film at this stage of production meets WP:NF based on the amount of coverage, but as KrebMarkt notes, the production company closed the office that's supposedly doing the work. One does not get the warm fuzzies here. At this point, until such time as news reports find a rosier future for it, it's appropriate to merge to Gatchaman as a part of that franchise. Deletion is inappropriate, however. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Revising my opinion to keep based on M. Schmidt's work on filling out the article and demonstrating continuing coverage of the film as a project. Good work there. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep based on MQS's sourcing and improvements to the article. I believe that even if the film fails to be released, there is enough coverage to allow a change of approach to the subject. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per satisfying WP:CRYSTAL's "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.": io9, Variety, io9, Mayasia Star, Home Media Magazine, io9, Variety, io9, Forbes, Wireless News, Malaysia Star, Animation Magazine, Coming Soon 1, Coming Soon 2, Animation Magazine, io9, Sin Chew Jit Poh, Comicus, Hollywood Reporter,  Clarksville Online, Animation Magazine, Animation World Network... and dozens upon dozens of others over 5 years.  They've already sold the rights to manufacture and distribute the film's action figures Active Anime.  Heck... there was even a teaser trailer released in 2009 Animation Magazine, Comic Book Movie, Superhero Hype.  In my opinion, the widespread coverage of the film's production allow it to merit an article. With respects to Krebmarkt, even were the film to never be made, this topic merits an individual article. No merge or redirect is neccessary.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the trailer and some prep artworks delivered here and there. There is a clearly a "scratched vinyl disk" vibe here repeating near the same track again and again like a mantra "will be released in 20XX" :( That why i'm not uber fan of that article because it will we be a shallow one until release of the film or dramatic hence notable boat sinking stagging.
 * N.B. : KrebMarkt respects a lot MICHAEL Q. too ;) --KrebMarkt 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Future films either get coverage that meet the GNG or they do not... and I am always willing to opine deletion of articles on future films that lack coverge. However, in reading through the reliable sources back to 2004, I see this can be expanded to include coverage of the idea, the pre-production, the current production, and even the temporary setback... all from numerous reliable sources.  No need leave it a shallow stub.  It's just as WP:CRYSTAL states... "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and that it is "appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur".
 * Even as the nominator himself grants the "film will undoubtedly be notable if and when it is ever released"... and with respects to JB, his assertion that it's "just WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation by a bunch of blogs", has been refuted by the coverage of the subject in WP:reliable sources for several years.
 * Completed film or no, it is the coverage of topic that allows it to meet WP:GNG. I am not a fan of pre-emptively sinking a boat that can be so easily improved... as some here know.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just how reliable are these sources we're citing?  says that this film has a scheduled release date of "early 2009".  This is exactly what I'm talking about.  It's a problem.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... I'm expanding and improving the article even as I stop back by the AFD. Its the ongoing coverage that meets WP:CRYSTAL, released or not. And yes, it has had a colorful and well-docummented history... A beginning of development in 2004... announcement in 2007 of an anticipated 2008 release... anouncements of finacial setbacks that held of release until 2009.... a company-wide reorganization that is holding off release until 2010 or 2011. The Imagi close-down of US subsidaries was done to assure capital for the Hong Kong parent company for release of the film. They go broke unless they get a return on investment... which seems to be proper incentive. So sure, each time they think they're close, it will receive coverage... but as the history of this project has been documented in RS for years, released or not, it meets GNG and CRYSTAL. And no... I will not be using the blogs or unreliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Revised motion -- as of right now I feel that this should be merged, which is a "keep" of sorts -- it is really an editorial decision at this point. I would like to underscore my strong concerns regarding some of the passing mentions and sources currently out there surrounding this topic, many of them do not strike me as "reliable" as defined by our Reliable sources policy, but nonetheless I think we can find a place for it somewhere here and I'm sure its in good hands now.  Thanks for changing my mind Michael.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... a merge might be discussed on the article's talk page... but I will continue expanding the article to make it worthy as a stand-alone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem I do have with this article is the lack of sourced material to show the people who will voice and direct the movie are accurate.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why you removed them. That's fine. So what has not been confirmed in sources has now been removed. But not being able to yet share final cast simply means that Wikipedia can have the patience to wait as long as the topic itself meets WP:GNG .  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly I can see an improvement in the article itself from MQS's efforts, however I'm yet to be convinced it warrants a separate article yet, and if the sourcing will really change anything about that. However, in the interest of fairness and respect for the efforts, I will at least revisit it in a couple of days. At the very least, even if it is merged, there will be some worthwhile content to merge, allowing an easy path to a stand alone article at a later date. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciating your comment, but is it your opinion that the project's coverage over at least 4 years, specially with the setbacks which add to its history, might be discounted as somehow not meeting WP:V, WP:N, and the caveats at WP:CRYSTAL?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I say, I'll look at it when I've got a bit more time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment - Mentioned on a ANN article yesterday Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In my further expanding and sourcing, I find that the topic is notable in that it has become a well-documented case of an ongoing production hell whose length and scope of coverage has made it worthy of inclusion per guideline. Completed or not, released or not, it is the failure of the Imagi's processes that gives the continued coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and not surprisingly, sometimes continued failure can be more notable than success.  What say we perhaps retitle it as a well-sourced stand-alone spin-off of Imagi Animation Studios?  Something like Gatchaman (Imagi film project).  If (or when) the film is released, it can be returned to a title reflecting its release date for future expansion of the film itself and its cast. Seems this could then be a win-win for Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 30 January 2010 (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.