Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (3rd nomination)

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. Eluchil404 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Monsters Attack Japan!

While this is, I believe, its third nomination, none of the arguments made in AfD2 seem to have nailed the main point here. It's got nothing to do with crystal balling at all. Under the notability guidelines for films, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." This much is clear: standalone articles should only be created when a film enters production. As is the reasoning behind it: too many instances exist of films which are either constantly pushed back, or collapse altogether (American Gangster is an example that had a director and cast attached and still fell apart).

While in certain circumstances it is prudent to ignore all rules (perhaps when excessive notability has been demonstrated or the start of production is imminent) this potential film surely does not warrant such treatment and a better place should be found for the information contained therein. Similar methods have worked for films such as Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4 and The Hobbit (2009 film). Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think the film is going to be made and soon, as Trey Parker is directing, and who is very hot within the industry. But the fact the film has still not started shooting, means not notable. In three month it will be different. Is it worth leaving for that time? scope_creep 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything could happen to push back filming in that time. We've seen too many examples of this happening to call it a rare event; indeed, it's quite common. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually !voted "weak keep" in the first afd, but as shooting still hasn't started, it should be deleted. Any confirmed details can be mentioned in Parker and Stone's articles. Crazysuit 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A film set for release in 2009? Come back in '09. Mandsford 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep sourced. JJL 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. However, that does not address the point that the film has not yet entered production, is not close enough to production to turn a blind eye and is not notable enough in its own right to yet warrant an article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear failure to meet notability requirements as set out by nom. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 4 November 2007 (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.