Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse (Fan made productions): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:39, 8 December 2006

Buffyverse (Fan made productions)

An entire article devoted to non-notablem unverifiable copyvio Internet fancruft. Other articles related, such as Cherub (Buffyverse) are in AfD also. A Strongest Possible Delete vote from me; fanfic does not belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed quite a lot of links from that article a couple of months ago. I suggest sending the non notable fan made articles and the {{Buffyfanfilms}} template to deletion too (note that the template has an external link!). The article could become encyclopedic with rewording and sourcing, though. -- ReyBrujo 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precedent says that fanfiction isn't generally notable and I don't see anything special about this. Demiurge 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these seem nice, but without coverage by independent reputable sources, it can not overcome the presumption that fanfiction is not-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, nn bloody fanfcruft. SkierRMH,08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If these works were written about in film reviews or magazines or newspapers they would be notable, regardless of all the gnashing of teeth here and in the article about who owns the copyright. If they had a huge number of downloads, that might make them notable under emerging notions of what is notable internet television programs. I did not see such claims in the article. If there is a Buffypedia or Whedonpedia fanfic such as this would be right at home, but it does not appear to have a high degree of general notability. Edison 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - The indivdual films are up for AfD as well right now, but I think that this article could be substantially improved by merging some content here rather than having indivdual articles. I could then just include key verifiable information on each of the five films, with as much referencing throughout as possible. Also I have completely removed the less notable 'Virtual Seasons' projects, leaving only the films.

According to official policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) I thought articles were only supposed to be deleted if they were unverifiable, if they contained original research, or if they didn't have a balanced point of view? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, and a disputed one at that (as I write this that article has a tag pointing out some people disagree it even deserves 'guideline' status).

IMHO the topic is just about enough notable. The various films have been covered from some outside sources, e.g. Machinima.com (site about this emerging new technology used by filmmakers), Imdb.com (site which chronicles TV and films), and The Stranger (Seattle newspaper). Most important IMO is the article from Wired Fans reclaim the Whedonverse. The journalist who wrote that article even said this of Cherub (one of the films): "it's easy to believe that one day soon, the format [Cherub's] cast and crew are pioneering will challenge network TV the way blogs have challenged publishing.". (Newitz, Annalee, "Fan Films Reclaim the Whedonverse", Wired.com (June 8, 2006), page 2)

A lot of work went into the creation of these articles. It would be great if people were willing to accept some improvements to Wikipedia rather than completely remove all information on the topic.

-- Paxomen 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely because of the precident set by other fanfilm entires on Wikipedia (IE: Star Wars, Star Trek and Batman) -- Majin Gojira 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Title says it "fanmade". If they were notable it would be O.K. And how is this keeping a low profile ? Cnriaczoy42 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone. - Phoenix

Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - per paxomen. When the AfDs are finished they will create an opportunity to substantially improve this article, but focusing only on the most notable projects (maybe we could even rename to fan films, and then only include the most notable fan films) and I can cope with completely excluding less notable fan fiction to make some people happy. Although really articles should be judged on official policy and not on disputed guidelines. ~ Buffyverse 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 '''Delete''' Title says it "fanmade". If they were notable it would be O.K. And how is this keeping a low profile ? [[User:Cnriaczoy42|Cnriaczoy42]] 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone.-Phoenix
+'''Keep''' Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone. - Phoenix
+'''Keep''' & '''allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD''' - per paxomen. When the AfDs are finished they will create an opportunity to substantially improve this article, but focusing only on the most notable projects (maybe we could even rename to fan films, and then only include the most notable fan films) and I can cope with completely excluding less notable fan fiction to make some people happy. Although really articles should be judged on official policy and not on disputed guidelines. ~ [[User:Buffyverse|Buffyverse]] 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)