Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Apokélypse

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. Ok I think it's safe to punch this one now. Yes I did comment here but not on the merits of the the article in question. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Apokélypse

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pokemon Apokelypse isn't a real movie. Even the sources say it will never be shown. Does not significant coverage in mass media: generally limited in Youtube and in fan forumsJL 09 ^_{q?_c} 05:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Deletion rationale is faulty - in this case, it does not have to be a real movie to be notable. Sheng Long, for example, is clearly not a real Street Fighter character, but is notable for being discussed in reliable sources. Similarly, reliable sources discuss this. And as for the second rationale for deletion added, it clearly does. Crave Online, Kotaku, Cinemablend, The Escapist, and GamesRadar are multiple reliable sources in mass media. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm calling bad faith nomination - the article makes it blatantly clear that it is still a work in progress. Making a decision that it is not notable when the author is still not done writing it is acting in bad faith and putting them in an awkward position. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Well-written, referenced article meeting #1 of WP:WEB. Just because the actual film isn't going to be made doesn't mean it isn't notable. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually going to say that an admin give a speedy closure of this - like I've said, nominating it for deletion so close after its creation is bad faith and assumes that this work in progress is not going to expand past its current state (which is well-referenced and clearly shows reliable sources commenting on the video). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure I agree that it's a bad faith nom... Plenty of articles are deleted or nominated for deletion when they are still in progress. It looks more like the nominator just needs to read up on deletion and notability criteria. That's just my $0.02, though. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not bad faith, or not intentionally so, but the fact that it was clearly being worked on should have prevented such an AfD from happening so early. From what I see, the nominator only nominated it because of what it was. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search of sites that the video game project deems reliable by consensus at WP:VG/RS returns ten pages of results, not to mention the reliable sources already in the article. Note that whether or not something is a "real" film, whatever that means, or is merely a short small project is not a criteria to keep or delete an article, so I have only addressed the nominator's claims that there is insufficient reliable coverage. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the above. This is plenty prima facie coverage of this to easily pass. –MuZemike 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because something is a confirmed or likely hoax, it does not mean that it not notable enough to be included somewhere in the encyclopedia at the least (either as its own article or as part of another one). –MuZemike 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it even means anything... I'm surprised how well developed the production and reception sections are. Tezero (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can this be closed as snowball keep already? The article should be finished within a day or two and ready for GAN, and I've still got a good paragraph of reception thanks to GamesRadar to add tonight to boot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding snowball keep. I'm pretty sure that even someone who has "voted" keep can declare snowball keep. I mean, it's pretty unlikely that 18 delete "votes" would appear - ie, the number that would be necessary for the result to even be delete. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep We have a well sourced, well written article, that confirms its notability through multiple reliable sources. A film is not required to have international theatrical distribution in order to be found notable, as notability may be found in a topic exceeding the requirements of WP:GNG and also meeting those of WP:NF.[1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it difficult to find an admin willing to speedy close this due to WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon. I know I'm not touching it with a 10-foot-pole until its time period is up. Anyway, there's really no harm in it waiting out its full seven days. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IAR closes under WP:SNOW were mentioned as exceptions. That thread was mostly concerning "non-snowable" AFDs closed between days 6 and 7. This one is borderline at this point. Another possibility is to ask the nominator if he is willing to withdraw. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have now asked him Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the topic itself is easily found as exceeding WP:GNG, I can only in best respects suppose the nomination of an article in the process of it being expanded and improved might have been due to a misunderstanding of notability criteria... or perhaps a lack of understanding of the deletion policy advisements at WP:ATD... and a hurried nomination of an article with such potential runs contrary to WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT. While you might not wish to touch it for another 7 days is fine... but WP:OUTCOMES and WP:BOLD might prevent a long and drawn out discussion when the results that WP:IMPROVE the project seem inevitable... specially in the face of improvements that continued[2] since its nomination... turning this into THIS. When a discussion is moot, it is moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand your points in that it is highly unlikely that this is going to receive many/any delete !votes. However, I agree with several people in the AN thread that following the 7-day policy is not hurting anything. I don't feel like this has much threat of becoming a long, drawn-out discussion, as everyone seems to agree (although it is threatening to become a drawn-out extension of the AN discussion). I will IAR if something is harming Wikipedia, or if it will dramatically improve something. I think closing this early does not fit one of those criteria. If another admin feels like closing early, be my guest, but I plan to leave it until its 7-day-mark. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Well, sure... a few more days will certainly not hurt. However, I have just a few moments ago asked the nominator reconsider in the face of continued improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently up for GA/N, so this may be viewed as problematic. Also, in regard to the comment you left on my talk page, the quotations around votes were to suggest that I know that they aren't votes - it's just easier to say "votes" than "proponents for deletion". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GAN backlog is considerable; it was nominated earlier today, so that it is currently up for AFD is likely to be irrelevant by the time a review is actually started. It isn't unusual for items to be listed for several weeks (if not longer) before they are reviewed. It would probably have been wiser to wait for the AFD to be completed before initiating a GAN, regardless of feelings over the merit of the AFD. A week is nothing, and there would have been only five more days to wait. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wow, quick on the GA/N. I have faith in the GA reviewers to look over this discussion, however. As for the comment on your talk page, I left it there so as to try not to lead this discussion to far off topic. If you'll notice, I mentioned that the quotes demonstrated that you understand they're not real votes (similarly to how I use !vote). I was just curious about the 18 delete !votes comment. Perhaps we should stick to talk pages to keep this nom more on topic? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has articles on numerous other fan videos, and the video itself has become quite popular and noticeable across the internet. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (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.