Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanboys (2003 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fanboys (2003 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fan film with no evidence of notability, prod declined without explanation Jac 16888  Talk 11:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to pass WP:FILM Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per prior AfD discussions here and here. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments here would not necessarily be accepted now; consensus has changed, and citing GHITs and IMDB can be enough to get one sacrificed to Wiki-Tan now. The consensus here seems to have been mainly delete for Fanboys, with the ones who explicitly mention the movie all citing the previous AFD or asking for a procedural keep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability and thus fails WP:NOTFILM. The previous AFD someone said "It is a notable fan film", yet there is not one reference in the article.  How do we know it's "notable"? — Mike   Allen   07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just gave the article a long-needed cleanup for style and format, and urge that New Zealand and/or Australian Wikipedians with access to hard-copy reviews of the film add the needed sources, as the film may prove to have enough of a cult fanbase to be seen as notable. My own searches were hampered by the fact that this fan film about Starwars seems to have inspired the 2008 film of the same name, and by the fact that the term "fanboys" is spread throughout the internet in multiple other uses, thus making searches even more difficult.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment On evidence of IMDb entry the film doesn't appear to have been distributed, and no reviews independent of subject online. In print perhaps? Rachel0898 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed... in print or archives showing its reception when released in 2003. As IMDB is not the king of reliable information, and as the film HAS been released and is available still through youtube and other online sources, we can accept that it has been "distributed" through that medium. And too, the film screened at the Commonwealth Film Festival in Manchester in 2004. Not all films have theatrical release, but that is never a mandate. And again, searches are made more difficult because there was a feature film by this name that first screened in 2008.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please can we get off the fence with this one? Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As much as I would like to keep this film, I am not seeing the sources needed to support an article.  As an aside, I would opine that distribution over the internet does not generally satisfy the "widely distributed" criterion of WP:NOTFILM.  Nearly anyone can upload a film to YouTube or their own website.  It doesn't represent the barriers that getting a theatrical or home video distribution deal do.  On the other hand, internet distributed fan videos certainly can be notable if they can demonstrate coverage in reliable sources; I'm just not seeing that coverage here.  Eluchil404 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record, this one predates YouTube - it was released in 2003, and originally hosted at TheForce.net - if I recall correctly, they didn't host just anything, like YouTube does now - there was a screening process and they were very selective with what they did or didn't host... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear in my comment, because I didn't mean to imply that the history of the film was otherwise than you have described. I am aware that TheForce.net exercises editorial control over films they host, and indeed think that they are good judges of fan film quality.  I just don't think that "hosted by TheForce.net" is a realistic notability criterion for Wikipedia purposes.  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (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.