Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Galgameth


 * 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Adventures of Galgameth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Lacks any reviews. Sourced only by imdb and a shop. I found anothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another look says the garden is centred on Devin Neil Oatway and not Ojai Studio Artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Does anyone know if the remake thing is real and not just someone saying that they're similar? If it can be verified that it's a remake of Pulgasari, then this could be included in the article as a one sentence mention and this redirected there. So far I'm seeing some mention, such as a trivial mention in a Billboard article and a brief review, but nothing major. There might be a review in this Orlando Sentinel article, but I'd like to know for certain before saying it absolutely does. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pulgasari. I found some mention of the film in passing and managed to find mention of it having been a re-make of the North Korean movie, but everything I've found for this has been a brief and trivial mention at best. I'll note for any searchers that the film was at one point referred to simply as "Galgamesh" and you'll find more sources under just that. Other than a few reviews in typical film review books (all of which are about a paragraph long), most of this just references to the fact that it exists and was a remake of a Shin movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea  db  eef  06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: "walled garden" worry aside, this thing had multiple international releases under different searchable names, including:
 * Romania:
 * Alt English:
 * Germany:
 * Spain:
 * Spain TV:
 * France:
 * The may be enough in other-than-English sources to merit a keep. Time for further digging.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: Relisting in light of eleventh-hour new sources
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The worry of a "walled garden" aside, this film film had multiple international releases under different searchable names. Yes... this article on a minor children's film has been overlooked for some time, and while not intended to "force" cleanup this AFD has brought attention to an improvable topic. Article is now undergoing expansion and improvement. We rarely delete articles if it is shown that they can be improved over time and through regular editing. Yes... there's much more to do. But rather than deletion of weak articles, it is through our improving them per use of available news and book sources that we improve this encyclopedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been improved and references have been added (thanks to MichaelQSchmidt). jonkerz ♠talk 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly enough coverage to warrant an article of its own. --Soman (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep per Schmidt. Once again he proves that he's our miracle worker when it comes to sourcing film articles! :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. See also WP:ODD; crappy films often make great articles. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2013 (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.