Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong Appears in Edo


 * 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-- JForget 00:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

King Kong Appears in Edo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is based on a hoax. No one has made any attempt to prove otherwise. Look at the explanation on the talk page for a more in-depth reason for why it's clearly a hoax. --Juansidious 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There has never been any proof presented that this film has ever existed, nor has any credible attempt been made by any member to prove otherwise. Yakofujimato
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. This hoax even has an IMDB listing, equally as fraudulent. --Agamemnon2 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a hoax. I'm not sure if all the details in the article are correct, but there was indeed a film with this title released in 1938. It's briefly mentioned on page 123 of this book, which I own. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, wonderful: . Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have added three citations, including confirmation of the film's existence by Ohashi, the man who created King Kong for the film (he also created the Godzilla suit). The film is mentioned in at least two books, so there's no reason for deletion here. Even if it were a hoax, it's still a notable one, but Ohashi's statement is convincing. Pufnstuf 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You can fake out Google, but you can't fake out Google Books. When you can display page 123 of King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson by Ray Morton, it's like turning over the cards to reveal a full house.  I woulda thought it was a hoax too, but after the nominator sees this, I think it's going to be a "nomination withdrawn".  Mandsford 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the book citations and the interview with specific quotes from Ohashi. Even if it is a hoax, that verifiability trumps anon OR arguments on the Talk page. But it needs scrutiny and trimming down to what's reliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; Enough reliable sources, especially if books about King Kong discuss this movie. I've just noticed an IP editor is removing the references in the article, someone should watchlist this article. Masaruemoto 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Repeated reference which simply repeat rumors is not substantiating anything! I suppose these sources can explain why most of the actors don't seem to exist, why 'Kong' in medival Edo is walking through European looking streets, why there is no documented evidence of it ever had existed, why it never seemed to have been mentioned until the early 2000's. Morton's booki which is cited by some was published on November 1, 2005 AFTER the Edo hoax was already underway. You can cite one million personal site which repeat misinformation as "verification" but it doesn't become a fact! No one can cite ANY reference to this film before the 2000s! No one can produce any of these elusive "rare books" out of Japan. If any can produce REAL PROOF then please do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting important words in capitals doesn't make it more true. As I said at the Talk page, by WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Whether they provide evidence or not, books from respectable publishers have to be viewed as reliable sources. Robert Hood, as a writer with an established reputation in the relevant field, also comes well under WP:V. SciFan Japan is a well-established online magazine, with an article providing direct quotes from a known figure saying he was involved. These all trump whatever novel deductions - which count as WP:NOR anyway - you or I might make. Gordonofcartoon 12:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   —Fg2 10:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even assuming it's not a hoax, a film which doesn't exist any more, recieved horrible reviews and failed at the box office isn't notable. OZOO (What?) 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Change vote to Neutral --OZOO (What?) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those things have anything to do with notability. Indeed, if the film did receive horrible reviews, that would mean that it was the subject of multiple, non-trivial newspaper/magazine articles, thereby passing WP:N. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of any of these reviews. There is no proof of these reviews. There is a fact tag there. However, after re-reading WP:NOTFILM I will withdraw my vote. --OZOO (What?) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You brought up the reviews. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking around on kaiju message boards, it appears that the film was mentioned in a 1978 Japanese book called Daitokusatsu. . Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Japanese title is 大特撮 : 日本特撮映画史. It looks like the local library has a few different editions, first one dates to 1979.  I'll see if I can get there to read up on it. Neier 12:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it was the first Japanese monster movie then that's notable, and the sources pass WP:V. Crazysuit 02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some comments to the talk page of the article.  With the book sources, this should be kept even if it is somehow (and, imho very unlikely) proven a hoax, as the hoax would meet WP:V and WP:N requirements. Neier 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The objective here is not to "prove it as a hoax". The point is to verify it's existence, or to present evidence that it existed at one time. All that has been presented here is that three websites repeat what has already been claimed on wikipedia and imdb and add nothing new and offer no evidence (with the exception of a claimed, and conveniently recently discovered all of a sudden, quote from the special effects man which is an apparently very recent addition to that site and seems to not be noted anywhere else, despite the interview allegedly taking place in 1988-nearly 20 years ago)

The other book mentioned the history of the Kong movies, again merely repeats the same Kong Edo tale without any new evidence or cited research.

The Japanese book from the late 1970s has yet to be verified as authentic.

So thus far, all we have are claims and protestations.

If this film really existed, then what is the explanation for the actors, the alleged studio, all of the promotional material, posters, newspaper articles, and the like have all completely having vanished?

Why does the only photo that is on the main page show someone in an ape costume holding a doll in front of a European landscape even though the film is supposed to be Tokyo in the middle ages?

Where did the person posting this information get all this specific information?

The totality of evidence here points towards a hoax. Even if some evidence is produced to prove this film did exist, most of the "facts" claimed in wikipedia and imdb are almost certainly bogus, or the poster has some incredible information that they are not sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1970s book most certainly does exist: . Unfortunately, the nearest copy is 130 miles away from where I live, and I don't read Japanese anyway, so I'm unable to say if it has any information about a 1930s Kong film. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  07:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it's possible that the IMDB entry could be "bogus," as the above unsigned anon IP comments assert, the three cited articles in References offer more than sufficient verifiability. This AfD should be withdrawn, IMHO. Shawn in Montreal 14:59, 2 October 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.