Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben and Arthur


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben and Arthur

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to be notable per WP: Notability (film). All the sources cited are either IMDb, youtube or Facebook. I don't see any real coverage in independent reliable sources. Most ghits are forums or such sites. Indeed, the article admits "Although the film has not officially been reviewed by any movie critic of a major newspaper..." Unless there is coverage in reliable sources, I don't think the fact that lots of people who bought it think its bad makes it notable. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * delete as no independant or reliable sources to indicate any notability for film or creators. Looks like a home made film, with an attempt to use wikipedia to make it into an "hilarious" internet meme.YobMod 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - despite the extensive sourcing, there is no evidence for notability. There is no indication of awards, significant critical review, or coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sold at major online outlets - Amazon, etc. Has attained a cult following as one of the worse "queer" films ever, or of any film, for that matter, a "camp classic".  There are lots of useful sources.  This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you can buy it does not make it notable, especially as the sellers you can buy it from on Amazon are not actually Amazon merchants but independent outlets, who aren't necessarily "major". If, however, you can demonstrate actual "cult following" through independent reliable sources, then please go ahead! I will then be more than happy to withdraw this AfD. Mr_pand [ talk | contributions ] 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A couple of sources (other than imdb or youtube which is what the article relies on at present):, . It does appear to have some credence as "worse gay film ever". I personally wouldn't think there's quite enough for notability, but there may be more sources that I didn't find. Quantpole (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a good article here. Sam Mraovich, the director/writer/cinematographer etc, is considered the modern Ed Wood, the film hovers toward the top spot of the worst films at IMDB and is likely widely considered the worst LGBT film ever. Based on this we have to do a near-reverse in standard source searching one would for a film that is liked. Some sourcwes that may help; "Ben & Arthur: The Worst Gay Movie of All Time", "It’s A Living: DVD/Video Reviews" by Michael D. Klemm, "IMDB Says 'Disaster Movie' is the Worst Movie of All Time", "A.M.Stir: Cinematic wasteland", "Paris Hilton's 'Hottie' Voted Worst Film Ever", " Out Films: Reviews". -- Banj e  b oi   00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs a major sandblasting to conform to MOS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced as to notability, my only query is whether anything would survive the 'sandblasting', in which case it may be easier to delete and start again. Quantpole (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ? But then someone would be attempting to recreate a deleted topic. Better to see what can be done with what exists.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Benjiboi's remarks above. This thing's a monstrosity though --- needs tons of work. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (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.