Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takipsilim

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. Well, this AfD certainly took a twist or two. The article was modified to reflect its status as a hoax, but the consensus since it was revealed is to delete. I do think that this content could be merged elsewhere, and will provide a copy of the article to anyone wishing to do so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Takipsilim

Takipsilim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Supposed television show that will be created next year. Google search doesn't give too much help. Most of the hits on there are blogs and forums. I don't see anything reliable to state that this will definitely happen. either way (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crystal ballery based on unreliable sources. PC78 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and WP:CRYSTAL. Xeltran (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Takipsilim, no matter how detestable it is (my opinion and the opinion of the legions of Twilight fans both here and abroad), has been confirmed by ABS-CBN. See this. It has received significant local and international coverage both in traditional and non-traditional media and especially considering the uproar over the Philippine version of Twilight, there is a petition circulating urging ABS-CBN to not push through. The circumstances surrounding Philippine Twilight may be convoluted in places, but it sure deserves a keep. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Confirmed by ABS-CBN. –Howard the Duck 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The existance of this series isn't really the issue. The link provided above is merely a statement from the network that this series will begin filming next year. I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates notability. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In a matter of days, this will become notable on its own before even filming starts. –Howard the Duck 14:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

      Note: the link is now dead. ABS-CBN News took it down.

      Cached version here. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Twilight (series). According to the article Sky linked, the rights have been acquired, but shooting hasn't begun. Since films are regularly deleted when they haven't started shooting yet (WP:NFF). I propose to cover the rights sale in the article of the series until more definitive information is available. (When a series is tentatively titled, the name isn't set in stone yet). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Takipsilim is not a movie remake of Twilight; rather, it is a television series based on the novel (or the movie). Whether NFF applies in the context of this AfD is debatable; however, the fact the media is having a field day over this (commented even by the likes of Perez Hilton and Ryan Seacrest out of all people, and found in secondary sources such as AHN and Yehey! (the Philippines' largest local search engine)) shows that the article merits its retention. While my decision still stands, if this is deleted or merged, I hope the closing admin will allow for the recreation of said article without prejudice. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it's SOP that once a movie starts filming, it can be recreated if it was deleted previously. –Howard the Duck 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Not quite. WP:NFF dictates that movies in principal production should not have articles unless the production process is in itself notable. Remember the AfD for that movie produced by Star Cinema that was still in post-production but was deleted anyway? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
        • In a matter of days, everything about this movie will become notable. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. diRkdARyL ♫ (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: "Movie poster" has to go, though. It's like the fake WWE PPV posters proliferating before the real poster shows up. –Howard the Duck 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Here's a very twisted development in the Takipsilim story: it is all a hoax! See this. This basically leads me to twist my vote on this AfD around into keeping Takipsilim because the hoax has generated significant domestic and international attention. Therefore, my vote now is "Keep, but rewrite to reflect on its current status (as a hoax)". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, now that it has been exposed as a hoax, I don't think this is a viable Wikipedia article. I don't think it has garnered enough attention from the mainstream media so it's now delete for me. –Howard the Duck 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If 5,000 people willingly signed a petition, international media touched on the subject and prominent commentators commented on it, I think it's worth the notability. I'm surprised people actually fell for this, including ABS-CBN. Remember, Wikipedia can host articles about hoaxes, not hoaxes per se. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I dunno, but 5,000 seems a pretty tiny number, that also includes people that multiple "signed" multiple times, people who were stupid enough to sign but actually disagree with the petition, and "flying voters" (I actually saw a "Autumn Reeser" as a signatory on one of these petitions). International media is Perez Hilton (I can't remember anyone else, except maybe other Twilight fansites) so that's only one. I dunno if it was covered in Saturday afternoon gossip shows though. –Howard the Duck 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but revise as Takipsilim hoax. Even Ryan Seacrest blogged about this, as well as various news outlets outside of US. This would also serve as a reminder to the Twilight fans that it is a hoax. Starczamora (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And to think you commented on this widely on PEx! :)) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not even notable for an article about a hoax. --Jojit (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

References

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article is non-notable and it's a HOAX. I think the probability of a Philippine remake of the Twilight series created by Stephenie Meyer is very unlikely. Should ever there be an upcoming Takipsilim series or movies, I am very certain that it will rather be based on Philippine culture/folklore/fantasy/mythology. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's a hoax that a lot of people believed, including international celebrities, makes it notable to be kept. Even ABS-CBN, the very company supposedly "producing" Takipsilim, wrote an article saying they are before retracting it and saying they are not. Yeah, it's a hoax, but it can still be rewritten to tell the tale of the hoax. What should be deleted, if ever, is an article that's a hoax that plays itself to be true. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I took the liberty of expanding and clarifying the article on what it is, which is a hoax. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete diRk dARyL ♫ 09:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Twilight (series). The hoax is certainly notable, but I don't think it needs a separate article. --seav (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This has no place in an encyclopedia. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 11:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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.