Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code Lyoko: The Movie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Code Lyoko: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article about a supposed 2010 film. No source cited, and I can find no reliable confirmation - e.g. Google has only fan-site rumours, and IMDb show only the 2003 TV series. The website of Moonscoop, the supposed studio and distributors, says nothing about it. Fails WP:NFF, which requires confirmation from a reliable source that shooting has started, and WP:V. The SPA author Lyokofan221 (talk · contribs) edit-warred to remove tags; a PROD would probably be removed, so I bring it here. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail wp:Crystal and WP:NFILM. Not quite sure when principal photography starts on an animated film though. --GedUK 12:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CRYSTAL - add note to main article if source can be found -- Chzz ► 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax / fan speculation / wishful thinking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a hoax, there's absolutly no info or any news on the movie, production of, the actors listed, etc... this should have been a speedy.--Bhockey10 (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoaxes are not generally speedy criteria. This isn't a blatant hoax. --GedUK 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (from speedy delete discussion...) "However, allowing obviously ridiculous hoaxes to linger long enough for a prod or AfD to run its course is also a harm. A user of the encylopedia is bound to lose confidence in the project if they encounter one of these articles, even if it is appropriately tagged." This is the problem with allowing hoaxes, admins should run a quick check on the hoax taged for speedy, I don't see much of a problem being more relaxed on allowing hoaxes to get speedy deletes. Obviously hoaxes like "Bob Smith became president of the US in 2009." is not believable by 99% of people, its the slightly less obvious but still hoax articles that cause problems and make wikipedia seem unreliable.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True enough, but i still don't see this as being blatant or obviously ridiculous. This is a good discussion for the CSD talk pages though. --GedUK 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well besides the WP:CRYSTAL and other things wrong it takes 5-10 mins of research, first by searching the title of the movie- nothing comes up... then searching individual bigtime actors listed- again nothing, and looking into the production company- and once again nothing. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly, needing to research it to confirm it to me means it isn't blatant. Anyway, we're agreed that this needs to be deleted. If you want to tag it as a speedy, go for it! --GedUK 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- well besides the WP:CRYSTAL and other things wrong it takes 5-10 mins of research, first by searching the title of the movie- nothing comes up... then searching individual bigtime actors listed- again nothing, and looking into the production company- and once again nothing. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True enough, but i still don't see this as being blatant or obviously ridiculous. This is a good discussion for the CSD talk pages though. --GedUK 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (from speedy delete discussion...) "However, allowing obviously ridiculous hoaxes to linger long enough for a prod or AfD to run its course is also a harm. A user of the encylopedia is bound to lose confidence in the project if they encounter one of these articles, even if it is appropriately tagged." This is the problem with allowing hoaxes, admins should run a quick check on the hoax taged for speedy, I don't see much of a problem being more relaxed on allowing hoaxes to get speedy deletes. Obviously hoaxes like "Bob Smith became president of the US in 2009." is not believable by 99% of people, its the slightly less obvious but still hoax articles that cause problems and make wikipedia seem unreliable.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hoaxes are not generally speedy criteria. This isn't a blatant hoax. --GedUK 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nice fancasting, but it's WP:CRYSTAL and unsourced. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.