Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Gear Solid: Philanthropy


 * 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   keep. Consensus seems to suggest that the topic is adequately notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid: Philanthropy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fanfilm of questionable notability - claims in the article appear overstated, and references are predominately primary sources or blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the "blogs" referenced are exactly the places you'd expect to see videogaming news of this kind. The reason blogs aren't normally accepted as sources is their lack of editorial oversight; Destructoid and PlayStation Official Magazine are both edited.  There's also coverage on RockpaperShotgun (here), Kotaku (here), Topless Robot (here) and Gamespy (here).  Probably others too but that's four commercial sites with an editorial policy.  The vast majority of fan films are certainly non notable, but this is one of the very few to clear the bar. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources means it clears WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the links provided above fall under the category of 'non-trivial coverage' and they're certainly not significant. Completely fails notability criteria for films. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:N - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I'm not sure that your suggestion that multi-paragraph articles headlined with the name of the article subject can be described as "trivial mentions" is supported by policy or by past AfD results. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Second Comment - Sorry for the both-barrels commenting, but it's also worth mentioning that the WP:NFILM criteria are aimed at commercial release full-length features. Fan films would rarely pass this test - including the unarguably notable classic Troops - and given that this one is distributed exclusively via the internet a more appropriate critieria might be WP:WEB which it passes criterion 1 of.  (And, of course, it passes the more important test at WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am similarly unsure that 2-3 paragraphs stating that the film exists and that the author enjoyed it and a link to the film qualifies as significant coverage. Perhaps other editors will disagree. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the sources listed by DustFormsWords and, , and . Joe Chill (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; for a fan-film, this is substantial coverage. The cost of the movie and the coordination required to produce it is extraordinary.  If this cannot pass notability, it's practically saying that fan films are inherently non-notable, and that's a road we do not want to take. TJRC (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Notability, and the effort put into making something, are not in any way linked. Most of the links above are "Capsule reviews" which are are excluded in the notability criteria. Topless Robot states that he hasn't watched all of the film (yet), and RockPaperShotgun's Kieron Gillon claims he doesn't even intent to watch it. This is way off WP:NF. It is verifiable at least, so if someone wants to briefly mention it in Fan film or somesuch, that's fine. Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The words "capsule review" aren't mentioned at WP:N. There's no requirement for an article writer to have watched the film; it's sufficient merely that they saw fit to comment.  As above, the WP:N definition of significant coverage is that "the sources address the subject directly" (headline contains subject name), "in detail" (many sources contain details of creators and budget), "and no original research is necessary to extract the content" (unarguably the case here).  It is "more than a trivial mention" (these sites took the time to prepare, submit to editorial, and publish an entire article dedicated to the topic) "but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (well, it is anyway, so that's a bonus, I guess).  My impression is that you're importing a separate and higher standard of "significant coverage" than that expressly defined at WP:N, and if you are then it doesn't reflect current policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Capsule reviews are mentioned at the more specific film notability guidelines, which is what both Panyd and I have linked to. It is my opinion that these small submissions are trivial, but I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss if that goes against the concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – Looks like plenty of reliable sourcing here. MuZemike 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has good sources. Especially this one. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2009 (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.