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. King Jakob C2 23:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (WP:Non-admin closure)[reply]

Megamol[edit]

Megamol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film with no reliable sources. Atlantima (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't take long to check out the Google News archive, as automatically linked in the nomination statement. Only one of the hits is for this film, the others being for some software with this name and a shopping mall. That one hit has a bad link from the search results, but I found a copy here which shows that the film only has a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually saw the Manila Standard's newspaper archives but it only went into July 1994, when the movie opened in August 1994. The entertainment section is a single page and it's pretty much of no use for entertainment news. As you've said below, it's next to impossible finding any contemporary info about this online... –HTD 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I quite agree. I was just pointing out in my comment above that Google News isn't the place where we will find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're on the same page Phil... I just expanded my position a bit. As the sources below purport the film as a "hit" and one that was released commercially (television) 9 years after theatrical release, we need an assist from those able to do to dig out hardcopy or book sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got this one, in 2006. It's mentioned in passing, saying that "the movie was a hit." In this one, a 2003 TV airing was the 22nd most-watched once-a-week show from Feb. 28 to Mar. 1. The other movie in the list was released in 2000, or there was a 3-year gap from screening to airing; it did quite better (it was 6th). (If you'd compare it to daily programs, it's 10th.) –HTD 19:27, 19 March 2013 (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.