Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duality (Star Wars fan film)

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duality (Star Wars fan film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fan film, no assertion of notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have started a post relating to how WP:NF relates to fan films such as this at WT:FILM. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "No assertion of notability" is incorrect - article mentions coverage in Entertainment Weekly (which I found here) and from Apple.com. Article needs to be edited with references added throughout, but the coverage from the three articles linked at the bottom of the page are more than enough to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there was an assertion, if you look at the sources they aren't all that great. Notability is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". The EW article has a blurb about the project, the Apple article mentions right in the beginning that the film was made with Apple products (and since when has Apple been a news & information source?), and the Time piece is based on a website visitor poll. I have never heard of DigitalProducer.com so I don't know how good that one is, though it is an entire article so that is something. WP:NF heavily favors commercial release, but I don't think it has fan films in mind. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I concur however I confess to curiosity why this wasnt put in the article.Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat
Keep - I've reedited the article, removing a lot of the unsourced content and to include the provided sources, as well as a more recent reference from Time magazine. 17:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Film is really only mentioned in the sources within the context of Star Wars fan films, not as a unique standalone work in its own right. The sources establish the notability of the phenomenon driving the production of such films, not this particular film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage. [1] CanMag is referenced in 116 Wikipedia articles, but doesn't have its own article. It looks like a reliable source though. Entertainment Weekly mentions it. [2] IFILM programming director Jesse Jacobs said "Duality absolutely blew me away, and a lot of people out there are saying this is the best they've ever come across." Other results are out there, but most require a paid subscription to see what they say. I think this provides its notable though. Dream Focus 22:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, IFILM actually hosted the video, so I don't think it would qualify as a second party. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hosted, but not produced. However, the quote came from Entertainment Weekly. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (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.