Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman: Requiem (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   delete. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Superman: Requiem
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

More promotional editing around Cupsogue Pictures (afd) and Gene Fallaize (afd). Non notable fan film. There is no "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Nothing historical about the film and there is no major awards. The page has many sources but there is a lack of independent reliable sources. The best there is a local BBC puff piece about look what this local person is doing. Nothing significant. The rest are a mix of blogs, press release, crowd sourcing, imdb, fan sites and primary. None are good sources for notability. This page was writteen by one of the team that made the film. Also rather telling about the intent for this article is the cherry picking of quotes. It is reviewed on the Movie Review Sunday blog (not  MovieReviewSunday.com) which gives the movie a bad review (concluding"Maybe if it was cut down to 30 minutes, it might be salvageable, but in its current incarnation it's a big waste of time. 2 stars."). The author of this page, trying to keep things positive, ignores the basic premise of this review and cherrypicks the one good thing from the review. Wikipedia is being used for promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up a lot of the puffery and removed almost all of the sources that were on the article. Most of them were blatantly unusable as RS beyond a reasonable doubt and the ones remaining are predominantly primary sources or ones that could be trivial at best. Fortress of Solitude has some vague assertion of an editorial staff here, but I'm leaning towards it being non-usable since it's not entirely verifiable if there is an editor or how thoroughly they check stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I agree that this looks to have been a fairly blatant attempt to advertise the film, given the tone and the edits by the original editor, who seems to have attempted to add the film to as many articles as possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd done some searching while I was editing the page and decided to do a little more after trimming the article down. I just can't find anything other than the BBC article that could be considered a RS. I see where Oh No They Didn't linked to the posters and where ComicBookMovie.com did some articles. The problem here is that ONTD isn't really considered a RS and the posts on CBM.com are all by "volunteer contributors", which means that they could be by anyone... even a member of the film crew, which is likely given the tone of many of the articles. In the end I have to say that this is a delete. One item of note is that the page is put in the template "Superman in popular media", so if/when this is deleted then we'll probably need to do a thorough cleanup to ensure that all of the redlinks for this film have been removed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The film has one strong source, BBC, as discovered by TG, not enough for GNG. When the film is released in November it will receive a lot of coverage (since the BBC is already covering it pre-release which is unusual). In November, it will surely become notable. Personally I think it's a waste to discard TG's work at cleanup when the article will just get re-created. Not sure how to approach it but perhaps recommend saving the content and setting a reminder to revisit in November. In fact, I will go ahead and do that just in case. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, the film has been released. In fact, it's been released for nearly two years. What are you talking about?  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, right. I must have looked at all the "Retrieved 9 August 2013" in the References and neglected to look more closely, assumed it was a new release. That is today's episode of "what I am talking about". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I had similar findings as Tokyogirl79. Generally, fanmade content would have to be very, very, very unusual to be notable enough for an article, and I'm really not seeing that here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:09, 17 August 2013 (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.
 * 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.
 * 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.