Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (2nd nomination)


 * 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   No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Following deletion at the last AfD, the article was recreated with the justification that it is about the trailer for the film, rather than the film itself, and thus is exempt from future film notability guidelines. I have several problems with this. One, this appears essentially to be an attempt to side-step process by following the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of them. Two, the vast majority of the article discusses the upcoming (as of yet unshot and thus failing NFF) feature film which this trailer was created for, and not the trailer itself. Three, this creates a somewhat tenuous precedent whereby all trailers, shorts, etc which are created for the purpose of attracting investors to a feature film may be considered notable. Indeed, if this is the example to follow, then all that is needed for any film big or small to warrant inclusion here is a trailer, even if no shooting has begun. However, some of the article's information is notable enough to merit merging to the bios for Baruchel and Rogen. I'd like to recommend that the rest of it be userfied and deleted from articlespace, for reasons above. I understand the frustration here, but a sober consideration of the larger picture aside from this particular entry is needed, instead of recreating deleted material under a slight shift in supposed focus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Steve  T • C 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before I decide which way to fall on this one, I will say that I don't think this should be treated purely as a film article in this debate. WP:NFF is probably less relevant than the general notability guideline, and it's this it should probably be judged against, as an article about any other popular Youtube video might be. With that in mind, can anyone cite precedent one way or the other here? Do we have any articles on other Youtube clips that have had a large number of hits and have subsequently received some minor press coverage? Steve  T • C 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Come, now; enough sources are cited in the article for it not to come anywhere close to failing WP:V. PC78 (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC) (Reply was to a comment made by Jasynnash2, which has since been removed.) PC78 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is it isn't about the quantity of sources but, about quality and such. If I'm wrong in that than please accept my apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Sources must be considered in realtionship to what they are sourcing. This is an article about a short film, after all... and not one about nuclear medicine or quantun theory. With film, sources usually have more than a bit of hyperbole. My best ones are the secondary sources that deal directly with interviews of the subjects asking about the film. These secondary sources (stronger} then give support the tertiary (poorer) sources. That's why so many. Notability had to be shown beyond a doubt. Of course, the thrust of the article has changed since entered this second AfD. Its no longer about a trailer... its about a short film that billed itself as a trailer to gain attention. In that it succeeded magnificantly. You have no need to apologize. Your concerns have been addressed. Thanks for taking the time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. With respect Giro, this isn't an attempt to recreate deleted material; this was all thrashed out at the previous AfD, where some of us felt that the faux trailer had enough notability in itself to warrant an article. That said, the lion's share of internet coverage seems to be in relation to news of a feature film adaptation. With regards to precedents, the nearest example I can think of is Grayson (film). PC78 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to delete, per analysis of sources by Steve. Media coverage is really about the proposed film, and only mentions the trailer in passing. I had a look for earlier sources about the trailer itself, but a handfull of blogs aside, they just aren't there. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have great respect for your opinion, and your delete vote just shows I need to continue working on the article. You may find THIS better as I incorporate Steve's concerns and change the focus from the film or trailer to the unique aspects of the trailer's cause and effect, as this gives that trailer a notability beyond it simply being a film short. Opinion? Schmidt (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I don't think trying to get around policies and stuff is very good but, that is a behaviour thing. On the article itself I think despite the copious amount of mentions in news sources the majority of the coverage is about the actors, from blogs, or fail to provide significant coverage in a non-trivial manner. Although, I'm not 100% on what is/isn't a fully reliable source in the movie business for our purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Week keep. To be fair, this incarnation of the article did originally have the word "trailer" in its title, but was moved to this title on 4 August 2008 by PC78 (diff). --  JediLofty UserTalk 12:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per sufficient notability about the trailer, which has already been produced and released. If such trailers like these establish their notability through independent coverage, then we should not fear a precedent.  If a trailer does not have its own notability, then we can delete them through the same channels as other non-notable topics.  I don't see any major issues with the setup of the article, though there could be some sectioning to separate what was made and what is planned to be made.  This article doesn't attempt a layout that indicates the certainty of this upcoming film, using Future film or Infobox Film related to the plans.  The structure is intended for the trailer, so the trailer is clearly identified as the primary topic here.  The trailer, not just having coverage, is a tangible topic, as opposed to mere planning for a film that may never be made.  I think that is the real difference. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Steve. After his useful analysis of the existing sources, I tried to find earlier mention of the trailer before the related mention of the planned film.  The wording in some of the sources led me to believe that the trailer had gotten attention in the past, but I couldn't find anything.  So per WP:N, it doesn't have "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail".  It seems that the coverage is oriented toward the planned film with the trailer mentioned as mere background.  I suppose brief blurbs on each actor's article would be appropriate. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- Based on the sources, this trailer, even if no movie is ever made, has achieved some notability on its own. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. With respects to the nom... One: When PC78 moved the current article from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse on Aug 4 and added a redirect, it was certainly not intended as an attempt to get around policy. That earlier Afd is what inspired the current article. Two: the article discusses the prospects for a future film because this article is about the trailer and how it might inspire a film. That is part of its notability. Early press response acclaimed the trailer and suggested it be made into a film. Several production companies vied for the rights to produce. The intent behind the trailer was to create the subsequent buzz. Illustrating a possible change in how films are marketed, this article is a window on changing times. The success of that effort give it notabilty. Three: Each article on Wiki must be judged on its individual merits. The only precedent being set here is that an article should be notable, well sourced, and well cited... as an AfD awaits any that fail to acheive those goals. But that's true for any article, so its not really a precendent so much as an affirmation of how Wiki works. If there are future articles about film trailers, they will have to answer to the same high quality Wiki expects. But what might happen tomorrow or next week or next year should not be a deterrmination here and now. The article now in AfD is not the same article that went to the first AfD, but was inspired by it... so naturally, and considering the subject, there will be names and events in common. But that original article was a poorly sourced few sentences about a future film... this one is not. My own suggestion is to return the article back to Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) and add a redirect from Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse in order to avoid any further confusions between a potential future film and the trailer of the same name. As it now stands, the name aside, the curent article has V, N, and RS. I do not believe any of the 12 cites or 17 external Links are blogs... they are all reasonably relaible for the subject being discussed, and they all speak toward the article's contents or the trailer's notability. if any future articles cover trailers in the same maner, they will have to mainain the same high quality that Wiki expects from any article. Schmidt (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think a renaming is necessary.   was the original disambiguation from the future film article, but now that it was deleted, there was nothing to disambiguate the trailer article from.  I think PC78 made the right move, and I think that the nominator's concern is not quite about "confusion" but more about a questionable precedent with trailers.  If production does begin on the future film, we could discuss the best way to handle the content (separate articles for trailer and film, or combining them), but right now, all we know is that there is a trailer and there is not a film in the making. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is about the trailer and not a future film. It shoud be judged as that... and not because it shares a name with a failed article. My suggestion for name change was only to remove confusion. Again, and with respects to the nom, the only precedent being set is that any and all articles should be worthy of Wiki. If I used CRYSTAL and predicted hundreds of such articles (just as there are hundreds about feature films or film shorts) I would expect each and every article to individually meet the same standards applied to all of Wiki. Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Still mulling this one over. On the one hand, it has received some coverage. But, as WP:N says, "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'm not sure that this has passed the threshold required. It's also worth noting that of those references and external links that aren't from sources of borderline reliability (not in a real world sense, but a Wikiworld one), they're pretty much just reporting the intention to make the feature film, with a brief note that it was "based upon an internet trailer that went viral last year." Steve  T • C 18:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the cites and sources. This "short burst" has been going on for over a year and continues to this day. Schmidt (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An ill choice of wording; I should have paraphrased the intention, rather than quoting outright. As I say, I'm still mulling this, and indeed I am checking out the sources (though more specifically, what they say). Steve  T • C 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've examined the sources used in this version of the article (permalink for reference, should the article be improved in the interim):
 * 1) A link to the trailer itself. This is a primary source, and cannot be used as a demonstration of notability. Posted June 2007.
 * 2) Slashfilm.com story announcing the forthcoming feature film. This contains a brief mention of the trailer as the inspiration for the film, though the film is the primary focus of the article ("The idea for the film began as an internet trailer that went viral last Summer"). Posted June 11th, 2008.
 * 3) Newteevee.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Contains a larger description of the trailer, but is a self-admitted "work in progress" site that has not demonstrated any credentials towards being a reliable source. Posted June 16, 2008.
 * 4) Variety.com announcement on the planned feature film. A bona fide reliable source. But again, the story is about the film, not the trailer. The trailer is mentioned once in the article ("Film is based on a comedy short from "Superbad" scribes Rogen and Evan Goldberg"). Posted June 10, 2008.
 * 5) Cinematical.com story on the announcement of the feature film. Reliability not determined, but I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. Still, this is another story that has only been decided is prominent enough to run one year after the trailer appeared, and is little more than an announcement of the film. Posted Jun 11th 2008.
 * 6) JoBlo.com story on the announcement of the planned film. This site is of indeterminate reliability and barely mentions the trailer. Credits the Variety article as its source. Posted June 10, 2008.
 * 7) Same cite as #2
 * 8) SFFWorld.com announcement of the feature film. It does mention that the trailer was a "huge hit" online, but is mostly about the film. Posted June 18, 2008.
 * 9) IMDb page. Not a demonstration of notability, and not about the trailer, but the film.
 * 10) About.com story concerning the announcement of the planned film. It contains a very brief mention of trailer ("The feature film is inspired by a trailer Stone shot for the internet"). Posted June 11, 2008.
 * 11) Geeks of Doom story that follows the same format as the rest. As a blog, it is also not a reliable enough source to bestow notability. Posted June 12th, 2008.
 * 12) Moviefone.com IMDb-style cast and crew information page for the film. It literally contains not one word about the trailer (undated).
 * Of those above that do qualify as reliable sources, not one is dated before the announcement of the planned feature film, one year after the trailer first appeared. It could therefore be argued that the trailer, on its own, does not have sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia guidelines. The planned feature film has a certain notability, but the trailer does not inherit this. Each of the stories listed above appeared after one Variety story ran, kick-starting this brief spate of coverage, and each one is essentially an identikit announcement of the intention to make a feature film, with a brief (usually one-line) mention of the trailer (almost as an afterthought). I'm sorry, I know you've put a lot of work into this, but I'll have to !vote delete on this one. It does not cross the threshold of WP:N for me, and most of the verifiable content in the listed citations is about the film (in which case the notability guideline for future films would apply, were the article expanded to include this information). I do of course reserve the right to alter this should any better sources be found. All the best, Steve  T • C 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addressing your points above... certainly the trailer is a primary source... but only offered to show that the trailer itself calls itself a trailer. The other sources were used simply to cite the statements in the article, as is required. The External links show the whole picture (no pun intended). And yes, they center around a future film... because it was the trailer that inspired the interest. Had there been no trailer, there would have been no buzz. Unique event "A" caused interest "B". The press furor created the notabilty. But if you wish specific cites about the trailer as a trailer... they DO exist in the cites and EL's. They may not be expansive, but the video gets menton... and yes, often in conjunction with the buzz about a possible feature... for THAT is a unique notabilty that is shared by no other "fake" trailer... and with coverage that has remained constant from the date the trailer first appeared until recently... Hollywood Reporter describes the plot and says "Stone directed a short trailer for it last year in the hopes that the concept could one day be turned into a movie.", SFF World speaks toward motivation: "Last year, screenwriters Evan Goldberg and Jason Stone talked Goldberg’s writing partner Seth Rogen and actor Jay Baruchel into doing a fake movie trailer and short film, currently in post-production, with the hope of maybe turning it into a larger feature", Rafe Telsch of Cinemablend "...had to watch this trailer four or five times to catch everything due to my own laughter. If this ends up being more than just a trailer..", Empire Movies "...catalyst for the project was a "joke" trailer which appeared online last summer.", Eugene Novikov of Cinematical "About a year ago, a goofy trailer for what appeared to be a comedy short film apppeared..." and "The trailer is moderately funny, though you should probably use headphones if you're at work, or around kids, or something. The jokes aren't brilliant, but Rogen's delivery brings them pretty close", MovieCritic.com "Rogen has so much player power in Hollywood right now that he could wrap a hot dog in discarded newspaper and people would line up around the block for it", Movie-Moron: "Should be interesting. Rogen seems to be on a roll, and the plot sounds intriguing/hilarious", ScrambleNetwork: "Whoa? Where the hell did this come from? A little Seth & Jay goodness to get you started on a Monday morning.", CinemaBlend: "it was around this time last year when we hipped you to this clip, a fake trailer in which Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel survive the Apocalypse together, and then get on each other’s nerves. At the time, nobody was entirely sure what it was supposed to be for, we did however know that it was one minute and twenty-five seconds"... and there's many more mentions and reactions to the trailer as a trailer... but of late (naturally) in relationship to a film. To stress... it is just that coverage in connection with an unmade film that gave the trailer its notabilty... its special and singular uniqueness. But I knew the battle was lost the moment Girolamo weighed in. Out of respect for those whose input made my work possible, I had to counter his coments for I believe he is wrong in this instance. As for your own kind words addressing the work I put in... thank you. I thought I had done a pretty good job a creating an article about a notable trailer and why it was so unique. It was fun. Challenging. Sorry I failed. Schmidt (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think Steve explained it well. Have 20 sources mention the trailer in a single line does not constitute the "significant coverage" required by the notability guideline. Yes, the trailer was such a hit with fans that it inspired them to go ahead with the movie, no one is doubting that, but no one is really reporting on the trailer itself...they are reporting on the film. You cannot extrapolate notability on the trailer from article's that focus on the film. That's like saying if a minor character is briefly mentioned in 20 film reviews (e.g. Minor character X was played by famed actor Brad Pitt, in the film Y..blah blah blah), then we should have an article on the minor character that is mentioned 20 times in one line statements. The last half of the page is devoted to....a future film. This is really something that should be on Rogen, Goldberg and Stone's personal pages.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Steve did explain it very well. And thank you for granting that it was the trailer that instigated the furor. I can find no other circumstance of that ever happening, which is why the aftermath of the trailer played such a major part of the article. I thought this uniqeness and the subsequent heavy press coverage was notable. Unlike your example of there's no point giving notability to a minor character, in this case it was the minor character that was responsible for all of the following events. Without him there was nothing. "A" caused "B". No small wonder that in every article about "B", there is an acknowledgement of "A"'s part... but naturally, "A" is now the sidenote of history as everyone concentrates on the importance of "B". I have saved the current article in my Sandbox. I will see about rewriting it completely to stresss the uniqueness of the circumstance of this one trailer... that the circumstance and results are the matter of notabilty. The sources definitely exist for that... as eveyone here has conceded. I will make it a point to ask Girolamo personally to approve a possible reincarnation when it is ready. I feel it is an important enough event on its own to not have it become a dismissable sidenote on some other page. Anyone wish to lend a hand? Schmidt (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And have done some further work in my sandbox that changes the focus of the article to show the notability of cause and effect. If the trailer had been done by "Joe Nobody" it would have died within a week. The notables who did it and why they did it and the results of their doing it IS the story. Please visit. I invite comment. I hesitate to move the information to the current article as naming conventions would still make it seem to be about something that it is not... and then we'd be back at a 3rd nomination. Any suggestions for a title for the new article? Its rough... very. I am adding EL's so as to keep track of sources. There is a copy of the current article below my draft so that comparisons might be made. It has yet to be cited. Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question per surmountable problem: How might I further improve this article so it might be retained or returned? Schmidt (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article seems to meet verifiability requirements and minimally meets notability requirements. It certainly needs work, but that isn't a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the one in my sandbox better or worse? Might you suggest a better/different name for an improved version? Schmidt (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am going to look into FA criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh.... what the heck. Editors are encouraged to be bold. I have entirely changed the thrust of the article from what was originally sent to the 2nd AfD. It is no longer an article about a trailer... it is now an article about a film short created by notable artists specifically as a fake short in order to influence and affect interest in the making of a feature film. Yes, it shares many elements with it's precursor, but the emphasis has changed and notability has been strongly established to confirm each aspect the article and its conclusions. Consider two phrases: "No. Don't. Stop." and "No, don't stop". They have nearly identical components, yet they have entirely different meanings. I ask those who voted to delete to compare what was sent to the 1st AfD of an article by this name (about a future film), to what was sent to the 2nd AfD for an article by this name (about the trailer}, to what is curently sitting on the article's page, as of just a few minutes ago (about the cause and effect of a short film). It just ain't the same article, despite the name.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good rewrite/rephrasing. I think that only solidifies my keep !vote above. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your request, I've re-reviewed the article based upon the improvements you've made to it since my last comment here. But I'm sorry, it still doesn't quite get there for me. Most of the problems I had still stand, e.g. the fact that the majority of the citations from bona fide reliable sources primarily focus upon the announcement to make a feature film, with only a one-line mention in some cases of the trailer/short. In addition, you now have text unsupported by the citations used (e.g. "It is unlikley that this furor would have resulted if the clip had been created by a non-notable" is your own interpretation). As an experiment, trim from the article any repetition, all the original research, and everything that doesn't directly relate to proving the trailer's notability. That includes the third paragraph (all about the proposed film), most of the second (a description of the events in the trailer), and part of the first (OR and repetition). What you're left with is this:"'Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse, the Trailer' was made specifically as a fake trailer intended to incite interest in the making of a feature film.[1] It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, starred Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel, and had a soundtrack from Randy Newman. The ploy was successful as Variety reports that the comedy video created a 'stir' when it appeared in June of 2007, and that several production companies vied for the rights for production.[3] When first posted to Youtube the clip billed itself as a trailer.[7] The trailer has had over 200,000 hits in the 14 months since its release. Eugene Novikov of Cinematical predicts the clip will disappear as potential filming nears.[9]"As you can see, there really isn't much to go on. I suggest incorporating the relevant information into the participants' individual articles, and when (if) the film begins principal photography, there will be plenty of scope in the film article's "Development"/"History" section to include what you've put together here. All the best, Steve  T • C 09:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point made (chuckle)... but that's not what I'd be left with, as certainly any article or proposed article can be pared down to one terse paragraph. My flaw perhaps was in my attempting to provide as much information as possible... and giving too much. However, you have shown me that there is a core worth saving and just which sources hold the greatest notabilty. I'll keep at is as time allows.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:46, 13 August 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.