Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (2nd nomination)


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Giant Monsters Attack Japan!
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

delete non notable film, crystal ball, Google only 3,310 hits. Godsug 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom. Captain Infinity 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this article was nominated for deletion and kept only a little more than a month ago. Renominating for a different outcome is frowned upon. Secondly, the movie appears to have been confirmed by the creators and several reliable sources have written about it ( and }. I would have to say keep in light of both points.  Leebo  T / C  15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for improper nomination (too soon after the previous one, fishing for a different outcome). --Agamemnon2 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm unwilling to ascribe bad faith to the nominator, so I won't make it a speedy keep. Even though it's a film in development, it shows two good sources (LA Times, Yahoo Movies). Verifiable, notable due to the people behind it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:RS, not in serious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Nom made too soon after last one. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The last nomination was this July.  Not going to speculate on the motives of the nominator, but this article seems reasonably sourced, and is about an announced film from notable creators. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable and written with proper sources. 70.21.254.188 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Reasons per Leebo. I'm having a really hard time assuming good faith on the part of the nominator. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being "in development" is meaningless in Hollywood, and having only a couple of sources doesn't raise its importance above all the other in-development projects floating in perpetual limbo around the film industry. This really IS pure crystal ball territory. If it ever gets out of Development hell, fine, but not until then. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. There may only be a couple of sources but they are reliable sources. Here's more reliable sources. (Yes, I know I'm calling The Sun a reliable source......)  Dbromage  [Talk]  00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's look at these "sources". (1) Yahoo (actually "Greg's Previews" by Greg Dean Schmitz). This quotes a press release and adds his thoughts. (2) Firstshowing.net: cites an interview in LA Times, but says very little indeed. (3) The Guardian link you give says in full: Trey Parker and Matt Stone's second project is called Giant Monsters Attack Japan! and as the title indicates, is a Godzilla-inspired disaster movie which promises to have men wearing rubber suits walking around miniature sets. That's all. (4) The BBC story you cite says very little, and links to the main page of variety.com. (5) The Sun: no, I don't believe that rag any more than you do. -- Hoary 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —  Dbromage  [Talk]  01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though the LA Times link is dead, yes, sources such as bbc.co.uk and guardian.co.uk are indeed "reporting" that this film will be made. But there's little indication that they are doing more than uncritically recycling either what they are told or mere buzz. If this film is only half as disgusting or funny as Team America, I'm all in favor of it (though puzzled by the notion of a parody of the Godzilla genre, a genre that, like "wrestling", seems already a joke); so my objection to the article is in no way motivated by an objection to the product. But look, the release date is not the month after next but the year after next. And here's what it says: Giant Monsters Attack Japan! is an upcoming American Comedy/Sci-Fi film set for release in 2009. It will be directed by co-creator of South Park, Trey Parker, and produced by South Park's other co-creator, Matt Stone. Parker and Stone are expected to be working closely with the writer of the film, J.F. Lawton (writer of Pretty Woman) on the script. The movie will pay tribute to and will be heavily based on the Japanese Godzilla series. It will have no CGI effects. The monsters will be played by men in rubber suits. The movie will be produced by Paramount Pictures and also Nickelodeon. So the movie doesn't exist. When it verifiably exists, consider creating an article about it; for now, it hardly qualifies as news and it certainly doesn't qualify as encyclopedic. -- Hoary 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been discussed before. Their are contracts and distributors. The movie (along with "My All-American") was said to go in to pre-production summer of this year. Their are reliable sources and enough info to make an article.--Swellman 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reliable sources? -- Hoary 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Invalid nomination per Leebo; and apparently there was a newspaper article (LA times) and some misguided person deleted the reference on the grounds that you have to pay for it. (Lots of copyrighted books and other sources are used as refs in Wikipedia; no policy was cited to support deleting it.) --Coppertwig 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try this MoS page. Yes you can have a for-pay-only link. But if it's so valuable, it merits an informative and helpful description (author, title, date, etc.) and an up-to-date link. Incidentally, I'd say it was an invalid "keep" decision last time: compelling reasons not to keep were presented, so "no consensus" would have been much better. -- Hoary 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just passed a keep vote in July, I see no reason why things have changed since then. Bngrybt 00:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Why must things come back up for deletion when it's supposedly already been voted on? CHSoarer 05:46, 27 August 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.