Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (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 per WP:SNOW. --Smashvilletalk 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders&

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

Article about a non-notable "film"; seems to be an article about a home project ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to the deletion KEEP As the creator of this article I would just like to say that this film is based on a very notable piece of fanfiction by G Norman Lippert and almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film and Mr Lipperts fanfiction is noted enough to have its own wikipedia page Also the film is NOT a "home project" there are people from around the world working on this film. Luke A Crazyla112 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP! This is a fan film that is currently in production. There are articles all throughout wikipedia dedicated to other fan films created around various other works. Mr. Sanchez, you need more of a reason to propose a deletion of an article, other than not liking "home projects". Ed, if you want to contribute, how about doing some research and trying to make the article better. As for me, I can't wait to see this, little flick, come November. CampAnawannaDave 01:03, 9 October 2008 — CampAnawannaDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per nom. Has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Crazy, you're welcome to claim it is notable, but neither that nor the notability of the original story makes it so. And Camp, please remain civil in discussions. Personal attacks hold no weight in a deletion discussion or in Wikipedia in general. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-canonical fan fiction without any independent coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think J.K. and Warner Bros. would have plenty of things to say about this fanfiction ever getting to the film stage, namely within the filling of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising in-production fan films based on fanfics. --Pixelface (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The creators of the JPHEC movie series receive no money or compensation for making the film and the whole film is made voluntary because the film makers love the story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawyers don't differentiate between profit or non-profit for copyright violations. Just ask anyone who has dared to post a fanfiction with Anne Rice characters.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A noticeable fanmovie is no different to a noticeable fanfiction it just depends on who authorises fan work and who doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:NF. Covergae in blogs by a fanbase does not count as reliable and verifable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It makes no difference that this is a labour of love, or that people in more than one country contribute to it; it is not a notable work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly non-notable fan film. I also question the notability of the original novel; all the sources on its page are trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article: "fan movie based upon G Norman Lipperts fan fiction". If this were any less notable, it would create a black hole of non-notability, eventually nullifying the notability of the rest of the universe and causing irreperable harm to the space-time continuum. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because Wikipedia should be a website where people find about new releases (of any kind) and I am a fanatic inclusionist. Xammer (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN fanfic production. Precedent holds that fanfic and fanfic films are not notable except in the most extreme exceptions - basically the Star Trek fanfilms that have been nominated for Hugo Awards and feature notable production crew and performers are the only exception I'm aware of. Under the rules that have been set out, unless this is made by a major company, or receives third-party media coverage somewhere (and Wikipedia's 20th Century-vintage rules don't allow blogs), or unless JK herself has authorized it, then there's not much can be done. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete - the very quintessence of non-notability (as well as being an advertisement for blatant copyright violation); the creator is advertising on his userpage for people to come here and "vote" to keep it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have read both of Mr. Lippert's well written and notable books and would really like to see this film. I think it is too soon to talk about deletion.  Fan made films can easily become well-known. Rather than delete the article, it is possible to "merge" it with the book's page to keep the information available? Lady Hester--Lady Hester (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Lady Hester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have the cart before the horse. Before being documented inside Wikipedia, things must be documented, by independent and reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia, per our content policies.  This is not a vote.  Your effort would be better spent getting this film properly documented, by reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia than in trying to stuff a ballot that does not exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. Unlike the fic, this has no third party coverage that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NF . Edison (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There do not appear to be any reliable third-party sources confirming this film's notability.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Crazyla112: "almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film"--nicely describes the scope of notability. Please close early to stop canvassing action here. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: no notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2008 (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.