Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace

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 no consensus. I find the argument that online sources are hard to find unconvincing. This is a 2004 movie and the web was certainly around back then. A nationally released film should certainly have generated some coverage so it's surprising that little can be found. However it's possible that such sources may be available in Japanese and/or hardcopy so we can revisit this issue in a month or two. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Blade: Missing Ace

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

Fails WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Page seems to be mostly just a collection of original research violation, no real significant secondary source discussion or critical commentary of any kind whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was a film that was shown in Japanese theaters in 2004. It received plenty of press then, but we don't have access to any of it now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing Admin: Just merely saying "stuff existed", or "it was a film", completely ignores WP:NOTE. Lots of things are films. Porno films are films. But not all of them are notable - that requires demonstration of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was notable. It had a bloody theatrical release.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but unfortunately, everything that has a "bloody theatrical release", is not automatically notable. -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is not notable as this movie doe's not have significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Powergate92Talk 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Not being able to myself read Japanese, I'll wait until a Japanese-reading Wikipedia interested in digging through and translating sources speaks up... or better, a Japanese Wikipedian who has access to hardcopy sources in Japan libraries and archive... as reliable sources might well be found among the results above, or among sources not available online. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a theatrical release by a notable company (Toei Company) and part of a notable franchise (Kamen Rider Series). jgp T C 21:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Following the links provided by Powergate above, this film does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly did have significant coverage. Due to the age of the subject it is near impossible to find said reliable sources online.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such a claim could be made about any non-notable topic because it cannot be substantiated. Neelix (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I'm sorry that you don't believe that a nationally released Japanese movie from six years ago didn't have any sort of press coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neelix is always welcome to translate these or seek input from Japanese-reading Wikipedians before flatly stating that no possible sources exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not misquote me. Anyone interested in what my actual statement was is free to read it above. The lack of sources in the Google Books links in particular is not encouraging. There are thousands of books on Japanese cinema in Google Books; six years is ample time for some to be written that mention this film. Neelix (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. Sorry. I was unaware that the only criteria for finding Japanese films notable was that they must be written up in books in order to be determined as notable. My own limited experience in American cinema is that while a film may have inumerable other sources, it sometimes takes many years before a film gets written up in a book. Do you have any translations available for these ? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Here the English translation of your search![1] Powergate92Talk 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah... it may take me a while to go through all 13,400 results. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 27 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.