This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Reconsider deletion of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie
Alright, in my opinion it is not true that this page is not suitable for Wikipedia's database. The databse is filled with unfinished film projects, waiting for their respective films to be released. User Little Jimmy was also right when he said this about the decision to delete the page: "Incubation or Redirect, but just don't delete it. The article doesn't need to be canned, it just needs more work. Besides, if you were going to delete it it should have been done months ago, because now it is on the verge of release it's soon going to become far more notable." (source) Why should Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie be deleted just when the page finally seemed to have been accepted by the community and staff? I think the deletion of the page may actually have been a mistake on the staff's end. I think you may have read wrong some information about the page and its state. It's true that it was deleted twice, and then re-created, but it stood there, being built up over the course of a very long time after the second re-creation, so there it really makes no sense to then delete it again this time, unless there was a mistake. I am going to re-create it if you'll allow it. Many fans of the movie and people just following along with the progress of the production of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie, have been working very hard on maintaining the page, and it's really sad and heart-breaking just to see all that hard work go away. Will you allow the re-creation of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie? Also, the notion that this film is only starting to receive coverage now is undeniably wrong if you had taken the time to make the right ammount of research. It has been receing coverage and has been in pre-production since 2010. The film project itself and its development phase was started in 2006-2007. And the production itself began in 2012. There has been nurmerous written and video interviews with James Rolfe, the writer, director and main star. There has been online magasines talking about the movie, there has been smaller, independent news companies writing about it. It is true that news articles from bigger news companies are only starting to surface now, but you got to understand that kind of coverage are not the only one that exist. You do, right? It is not too soon to have a page on Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie in my opinion. --Luka1184 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
New information should be added to this article. I have already been working intensely on an in-depth article about the movie on the unofficial AVGN Wiki. The link to this article can be found here. I was thinking that people could use this article as reference when writing the article on Wikipedia. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, no. And I don't mean to lecture, because I assume your article is fine, but FYI, Wikia is a completely different branch of wikimedia than Wikipedia is. A lot of information should be deleted from this article (see WP:FANCRUFTWP:N and the "overly detailed" warning on the page) and the only information that should be added (if any) is reliable sources which are not primary sources (not cinemassacre etc), specifically in a Reception section as the movie is received. Wikipedia absolutely cannot cite Wikia (see WP:USERGENERATED), nor would there be any reason to, because we could just rewrite it (or copy it with attribution it if your license is free). Much of the content that's currently on this article should not be here but could be on Wikia, and it looks to me like it is, and that the articles are pretty much totally redundant at the moment. Which is okay for Wikia but not for Wikipedia. Wikia is for keeping all the trivia and specious data and verbosity. Additionally, that Wikia article cannot presently be utilized as a harvest of references for Wikipedia, because they're all primary sources too, probably mostly the same. And that's, in turn, because the subject is barely notable whatsoever. Thus, as it stands, the very existence of this article is hanging by the thread of a hope and a prayer that the subject will become notable, and that the article will not need to be folded into the main AVGN article which, in turn, also requires drastic reduction. So I don't know why there are two articles at all at the moment, but Wikia is a free-for-all so okay! Good luck and please do make a Wikipedia account! — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 19:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: I did perform the major reduction edits to this article and to Wikipedia's main AVGN article, including a link to the Wikia article, thus accentuating the Wikia article's fan-focused importance twofold. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 01:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I just did a major cleanup which I'll note here because some of what I deleted belongs on trivia and fan-service sites like Wikia. And what I left behind was charitable by Wikipedia's standards whatsoever, and should probably be trimmed further. Aside from its future potential, this article does not presently demonstrate notability as per WP:N and WP:RS whatsoever, lacking at least three diverse secondary reliable sources to even reach C class (indicating a manifestly justified existence at all), and of course lacking by Wikiproject Film standards of reviews, revenue, scope, and impact. There had been an unsourced claim in the article about being the second largest crowdfunded film of all time or something, so that would be of some note.
Fill in that Reception section, but it'd better be good! Go forth and be notable! ^_^ — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 20:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
This is why I despise the Wikipedia community. You're all digging your own grave mate. This is why you're losing so many editors! If anything, Cinemassacre.com is a hundred percent to be trusted, since the website is strictly managed and owned by the director of the film. Wikipedia's rules, and the deletionists, and the people who do nothing but blindly follow the rules and do not realize that the rules can be changed, just as any article on here, with the consent of a majority of people (with common sense) are ruining this once glorious website. I know this is kind of off-topic, but it's the truth everybody! Wikipedia is dying. No, it's dead actually. Nothing can be trusted on here anymore. The website really needs a major revolution or something. So, if this is not the right place to request such a thing, which is? Please direct me to the right place. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? A revolution? How about make an account and discuss it on the talk pages of guidelines and templates if you disagree with something. The information Smuckola was as he stated during the edit was both original research and fancruft, which means that the information of the article may have been false and trivial information and that is against guidelines. The edits Smuckola has been justified accordingly, he is not in the wrong by any means. SilentDan297talk 22:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Why would I say something that millions of other people have already said themselves? And nurmerous news sites and blogs and YouTube videos etc., etc. and etc. have discussed. Also, on Wikipedia you're generally going to be seen as some heretic if you have another opinion than what the rules ditctate. I am sick of it. Also, it was most definitely not wrong. It did need some references, but the Wikia article I linked to had just that. Nurmerous references, citations, sources etc. I guess talking about it more could help, but I am only one person. --Luka1184 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Smuckola: Your edit to the new section "sequel" is considered inappropriate, as it deserves to be on the page. It includes information on the sequel's current status, and it's for the fans who want to know about the sequel. This whole WP:FANATIC stuff shouldn't matter for the section's purpose of being on the page. - Theironminer (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That is false, and makes no sense. There is no status! It's a non-status, a status of nonexistence. This is actually non-information, the depths of WP:FANCRUFTWP:TRIVIA. Furthermore, your personal opinion is not an edict, so do not falsely present it as such. It is not policy, and contradicts actual policy. *Your* edit is *actually* inappropriate. Fancruft contributes into the direction by which the article has been deleted and could be deleted again, which I am trying to prevent. Wikipedia does not exist for fans WP:NOT. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 21:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Can we confirm the notability of using this site as a review source? Looking at the page their no indictation of a paid staff, their own credibility. The film is review is from someone who's profile page seems to be focused in the game industry, not the film one (here) and from googling his name I can't find any further information about his work even though he claims "has written articles for print and internet publications for over 15 years. source. From googling his name, I can't find any other publications he's written about, I don't think the review is notable for a film review section on wikipedia. Any thoughts or reasons why it should be considered notable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: Hello. You have jogged my mind on the issue and I realize that we should at least verify what he says about himself, so thanks for pointing that out. I believe I have done that. I had to use the right google keywords like "jay vales art institutes", because he uses different forms of his full name, Joseph "Jay" Vales. He's on the Art Institutes staff, a student there (amongst others) calls him "Jay", and he's on LinkedIn. He's an accomplished professor and a reasonably prolific reviewer. I messaged him on Facebook for a bit today and he confirmed all these things. A lot of his other online publications have gone offline, but he owns and writes for http://www.nerdreport.com/. I reviewed the WP:RS document today and I believe nukethefridge.com has the qualifications of a situationally reliable source. It's got editorial oversight at least in the sense that someone other than Jay owns and operates and reviews the site, and it's of pretty good quality. So, given the fact that the subject of this article (AVGN:TM) is not super famous or Hollywood material, and probably won't ever be widely reviewed, people exactly like this are the ones to do the job, and they do it well. I mean the question is still out there, as to whether this entire article's subject is notable at all. If it is, then it may rely on situational sources. If it can only rely upon situational sources, then it may not be notable and thus must be deleted and folded back into Angry Video Game Nerd. Right? — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 06:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: Besides, are there any reviews that actually focus on the standard of B-movies, as opposed to the usual sky-high artistic expectations critics usually have? From what I've seen the reviews don't really factor that in. RainingMetal(talk) 15:07, 25 May 2015 (EST)
Do anyone know how much the movie has grossed?
We know the budget, but how much has the movie grossed? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)