Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan Wars


 * 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan Wars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been speedy deleted in the past for CSD A7. The article was rewritten and reposted and the author has already contested speedy deletion that hasn't been requested yet. In my opinion, this article does not satisfy notability guidelines and is not properly sourced. Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Give it a chance, only created today. Uniqueness of project and existence of Open Source Pictures article tends to give it notability. Wl219 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy at best... In other words, write the article in a sandbox, and after it is finished and sourced, then you can try to bring it back to life. But as is, this article should be deleted.Balloonman 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt, borderline speedy but probably best to give this a full debate if only to establish precedent. A fan film, not yet released or even in production, but pre-production!  Patently  unencyclopedic and grossly unsuitable for an article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt - this page has been deleted at least FIVE times in the last two weeks, and more under another name. Already been userfied for another editor with a suspiciously similar editing pattern. Film is unmade, utterly non-notable, and based on another non-notable fanfilm. MikeWazowski 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - even after this film is made, I still don't think it will be notable. Jauerback 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although its title and story are similar in all ways, it is no relation to another non-notable fanfilm of the same name. As you said earlier, its uniqueness and the Open Source Pictures article's existence tend to give it notability, but this article needs to work out to establish full notability, as well as adding proper, verifiable, and reliable sources, until this film gets into full production. Starkiller88 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Open Source Pictures link just goes to a script, not an article, as the previous editor claims. Since the link is user-generated content posted without any apparent editorial oversight, I see nothing there that confers any notability to the link, or the the article up for AFD. MikeWazowski 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete recreation ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt, per Andrew Lenahan and Mike Wazowski. Film is a LONG way away from ever being notable. TheRealFennShysa 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even if the film is a long way away from ever being notable, I'm appear to be familiar with the subject matter, I have to expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. I think the best way to address this concern is to have published, third-party sources about the subject. Starkiller88 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Come back when there it is notable. Man It&#39;s So Loud In Here 16:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But this article is tagged with a tag since this month days ago since its creation. There is no reason for you to keep this page unless its notability can be established by referencing reliable sources. Take note of this, its uniqueness of project and existence of its script on the Open Source Pictures website tends to give it notability because it has meet at least one definition of an open content film. Starkiller88 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious Delete and fails WP:FICTION as a fan film with no reliable third-party coverage and by extension WP:MOVIE. --Farix (Talk) 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice against eventual recreation if the film acquires notability through third-party coverage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The film is my own work. I've created it. I still need to provide its reliable third-party sources and by extension WP:MOVIE. Starkiller88 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's precisely the point. The AfD was begun because of the lack of reliable third-party sources, and the reason why people have been advocating deletion is as a result of the fact that these have not been provided. I don't think anyone doubts that it's your work. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't keep an article because "it will eventually have reliable third-party sources". It needs to have them now. --Farix (Talk) 12:13, 19 August 2007 (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.