Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario Bros. The Animated Movie


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. The Animated Movie


prod (for crystal-balling) was removed --DrTorstenHenning 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, almost a speedy for lacking context. MER-C 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''' Not a Crystal Ball.  SkierRMH, 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Fujyuu 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, Not a Crystal Ball. Maybe that should sort things out. :) --The Track Master 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unless someone can provide proof that this is actually a real project. Deathawk 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am the producer. ^_^ --The Track Master 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete wishful thinking at best, hoax at worst. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a chill pill. I'll be adding development pictures if that helps. --The Track Master 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all, this is not an article, it's just a statement that something may happen, and we have no idea what impact it will have. Secondly, if this were a real article, we'd run into notability; there's plenty of independent short animations featuring SMB. Just look at Newgrounds.com Mario parodies category to scratch the surface. In its current form, this article doesn't point to any kinds of guarantees on how phenomenally successful it will be. Sure, everyone loves a good SMB film; the question is, how is this thing different from others and why is it actually worth discussing now? This is like the game mods that we've had to delete because they hadn't been even released yet. If a major studio says they're going to make a film, that's notable because there's 99% chance it will be finished and the Consumers will take a note once it's out; this, however, has problems. Independent fanworks need, however, to demonstrate how much they rule, for example in form of press buzz. A studio which nets me whole 17 Google hits falls in the latter category in my opinion. In closing, by all means, we'd bid them welcome back once the film is out and they can somehow demonstrate the thing has become really really famous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will be changing the article so don't worry. And about fanmovie stuff? Well, the thingy is, that my "short" film is actually not a flash movie, rather a scratch built video editor edited film. Also note my 'intended' run time of longer than 45 minutes. But please, do not worry. I understand your reasons, which is why I'm changing the article by putting in development pictures and posters. I have the trailer written, I even have the blimmin' film written. I do understand that Wikipedia is not a journal. But please, rest assured. I know you're very concerned about whether this is true or not. But you have the director/producer's word. It is coming. --The Track Master 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Denaar 13:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You all think you're the board of trustees? Don't you? :) --The Track Master 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and salt. A7, no assertion of notability. I can find no citations, there are no press releases when I do research on the topic, there is nothing out there on "Chrissers Films" except a google group and some internet video hosting sites. One would think a major media franchise with a huge Q Score would have gotten some press from the copyright holder, Nintendo?  From all evidence put forward, this is a fan film. It's not notable. It misses everything in the proposed film notability guidelines.  --Kunzite 23:21, 26 November 2006 (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.