Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanboys


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  Sango  123   19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fanboys

 * Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. &mdash; Mike &bull; 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per imdb and mention in Washington Times article (link is dead, but text is readible enough to signify this article). That seems suficient enough for notability. Yanksox (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Did you even google it? 3.6 million hits! very notable. MichaelBillington 04:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear God, I hope you're kidding on that Google reference. &mdash; Mike &bull; 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, a quick look at the results on the first page would indicate they probobly aren't majority about the movie... (vote below) Viridae 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yanksox. --Coredesat 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Yanksox. The nomination does not, for me, provide sufficient reasoning to persuade me that this ought to be deleted. Notability is a concern, but it is not the sole criterion. Notability is not policy or a guideline. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent 86 (talk • contribs)
 * While the specifics of Notability are not policy, that essay and citations to it on AfD and elsewhere stem from Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is fundamental, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is policy. —Centrx→talk 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This fan film is very well known and is certainly notable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yanksox. I would like to add that if bands can be covered if they contain a musician notable for other reasons, the same should go for fan films (see last line in article). - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to delete. I misread this and thought Andrew was cast in the film, not as the title monster. And I am ashamed to admit, I forgot to check his IMDB record. If I did, I would've seen only two minor entries and voted delete straight away. - Mgm|(talk) 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps the nominator did not do his research on this one, as this is pretty clearly notable. Well sourced and well written article that doesn't need improvement, is encyclopedic, and should stay. Given the high traffic in AfD, it is my view that bringing apparently poorly researched nominations here wastes the time of many editors, perhaps needlessly. Keep  + +Lar: t/c 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - MichaelBillington's googling technique is silly and I don't buy Mgm's argument. If some barely, if at all, notable actor (playing "the boogeyman" is his most notable film appearance?) is in a film, that doesn't make the film notable in my book. Being listed on IMDB certainly doesn't imply notability. Legitimate media coverage seems limited at best, though I can't really tell how detailed the Washington Times article is of course. Wickethewok 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Yanksox. Viridae 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - one of the more well-known and popular fanfilms in the genre. Easily meets WP:WEB. I'm not going to go into the nominator's motives, but his mass listing of articles I created after a recent dispute with him is interesting. TheRealFennShysa 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I did not search for page creators when deleting, and one would think if I was in bad faith seeking a "revenge" upon TRFS I would nominate those Wikipedia articles written on TRFS' own fan films, even though they have been acknowledged by Lucasfilm. In fact, I looked only, as I said in my original nomination, for those articles I did not feel made a sufficient enough claim of notability.  And, as TRFS has heard me say before, a nomination for deletion is not a deletion itself, merely a statement that the community needs to review this and attempt to come to a consensus as to whether it has a place here. &mdash; Mike &bull; 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep notable --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|
 * Keep per Yanksox and TheRealFennShysa. MikeWazowski 04:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just simply believing the world is flat doesn't make it true. Provide evidence of lack of notability. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 08:51, 23 June 2006 (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.