Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild


 * 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   Inclubate. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable sources gave this a review and the cast is not notable. PROD rejected without good reason.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree that the cast is not notable. Stuart Ashen has been involved in many notable projects, both on YouTube and with the BBC. He has 437,875 subscribers to his main YouTube channel and 135,711 to his 'Extra' channel. (as of 27/09/13) filmdump.com have reviewed the film, as have other websites. --Dannyp1996 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Taylor, it matters very little if cast is "notable" or not as notability is usually not inherited. What matters per WP:NF is coverage in independent sources, and we do have a few reviews in a sources that evaluate low-budget indie films that have not themselves been evaluated for reliability.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That Guy with the Glasses is not acceptable as it is primary (they produced the film). The thing I'm worried about is the fact that I got no GNews hits.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 02:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Taylor, without the promotional budget of bigger studios with better financed films looking to recoup investment (IE: looking for a profit), a lack of Google news hits is less a concern for a film released FREE only onto youtube (so far). And in reading the article on That Guy with the Glasses, I learned that it was founded not by Stuart Ashen but rather by "Doug Walker, a Chicago-based comedian, writer, and film critic also known as "That Guy with the Glasses"... and Stuart Ashen is a British comedian best known as "Ashens" when he posts on their website. However, the film was produced by ChannelFlip,, the same folks who produce other Stuart Ashen stuff, and not by TGWTG.  BUT yes... Ashen himself wrote that review and due to lacking independence it for one can be disregarded.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Week keep or Incubate briefly per deletion policy. The WUVO magazine interview is a consideration, just as are the independent sources Sci-Fi London and Comedy TV is Dead and DUSA Media  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/Strong incubate per notability and lack of any compelling secondary/tertiary sources being used to their advantage, but nonetheless existing. As noted, the article is mostly plot summary. Some of the reviews linked above strike me as dubious as to whether they're reliable or not, but assuming we take the integrity of the interviews/reviews into consideration carefully, it could amount to something, but unfortunately that just isn't the case now. — Whisternefet (t &#183; c) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate WP:ATD-I This is a tough one for me to evaluate as I think it should be merged into an article that doesn't yet exist - Stuart Ashen has a better claim to notability than the movie referenced above, but Ashen doesn't have a page but this does. Tough one.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2013 (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.