Talk:Aquanoids

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.
	This article has an infobox template in need of an image.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Why does this synopsis used the word "terminated" four times? Also, I'm pretty sure the third "terminated" should actually be "impregnated". 66.73.0.121 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

1) A cursory internet search only returns IMDB and other unaccaptable 2ndary sources

2) The IMDB reference and others do not meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTFILM

3) There is no full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers or full-length magazine reviews and criticism reviewing the film.

4) The film appears not to be widely distributed in the US and it has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

5) The film is not historically notable.

6) The film was is not considered notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals.

7) The film has not bee featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

8) The film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

9) The film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive.

10) As far as a internet search is concerned, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

11) The film does not represent a unique accomplishment in cinema, a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of United States cinema.

12) No actors of notable stature or a director of note

I beleive this film should be given a prod tag. It does not meet notability requirements of WP:NOTFILM and should be nominated for deletion. Barton Foley (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, WP:NOTFILM is a set of guidelines, not policy, and has "general principles" for notability, not requirements. That said, the film is currently absent any reliable third-party evidence that it even exists, so with a heavy heart I must agree that the article is deletable. If someone disagrees, please check out WP:NOTFILM and see if you can add some citations showing that the film is notable. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this film with my own two eyes, and the number of years this experience has taken off my life precludes me from spending a great deal of my precious remaining time on earth debating the merit of this film's inclusion on Wikipedia. I believe that you can get it on Netflix™ [1]. Try it if you dare. Scrapdog (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) This movie can be found through a simple cursory search at [Aquanoids], so it obviously does exist.

2) The film was considered notable in the B movie world [2]

3) This film is loosely based on the video game, Aquanoid, from 1969. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.178.212 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminated vs killed and other colorful language in the summary

An anonymous editor make a number of edits to the summary, notably changing "terminate" to "kill" and pulling some of the color out. It was reverted, but I'm pretty confident that the edits are correct. The previous version reads a bit like the back cover blurb, full of colorful language. Wikipedia should shoot for the most clear summary possible. If "terminate" means "kill", we should prefer the more clear word. If terminate means something else, we need to define it or find a more accurate word. "come randomly" simply appears to be wrong. "film" is more specific and thus better than "tale." And assuming that the aquanoids are humanoid creatures, it's perfectly appropriate to mention that. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "film" does not belong anywhere in the article, and anyone who has seen Aquanoids will agree. 68.207.123.151 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that anonymous editor was me, and seeing as the word "terminate" has once again returned I have taken the liberty of once again changing it back to kill. I'm assuming that whoever changed it to terminate in the first place did so because the term is used in the movie(I wouldn't know if it is or not since I haven't seen the movie) but if I remember their is a guideline on Wikipedia saying that in universe terminology should not be used since those not familiar with it would likely not understand. If you believe my edit was wrong for some reason please message me to tell me why, thanks. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]