Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Green Goblin's Last Stand (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   keep. StarM 04:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Green Goblin's Last Stand
AfDs for this article:  
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article on a fan film does not currently meet the standard set by the Notability guideline for films. Specifically, it shows no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please note that the guideline considers IMDb to be trivial coverage. The only citation from a reliable source comes from the Baltimore City Paper. I don't consider this to be significant coverage. My interpretation of the previous AfD is that the article survived because this film is considered to be notable as a fan film. That may possibly be true, but there is no indication of that in the article. There are no citations from the usual comics industry/fan publications. Given that there has been a request for citations since 2007, I have doubt that any will be found. Consequently, I do not believe that the article lives up to the Notability guideline. GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   —GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - while the article needs better sourcing, it shouldn't be deleted - it's clearly a notable work in the fan film genre. A quick Google search turns up the following:
 * Articles: Los Angeles Times, The Independent (London), ComicBookBin.com, ComicBook Resources, Comics2Film
 * Festival screenings: BackSeat FIlm Festival, NoDance Film Festival - documentary about the film won the Audience Award, Waterfront Film Festival, JohnsHopkins Film Fest
 * Books: Homemade Hollywood by Clive Young will be published next month, reportedly with a section about this film.
 * I'd say the film definitely meets general qualifications #2 and #3, and I would also argue for its inclusion under #1 in the "Other Evidence" section. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I need to work through the sources, but two things immediately leap out... the LA Times reference is trivial (a couple of sentences do not constitute "non-trivial"), and secondly I don't see how this fan film fulfills criterion 3... it hasn't won a major reward; a documentary about the film won an "Audience Award" from a borderline notable film festival. That doesn't cut it. I need to look at the other sources though before making a decision. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say that "other evidence" is about the only way it is notable. The Independent article offers some thorough coverage, but the LA Times article does not. The only comic book website listed here that I would consider to be a reliable source is Comic Book Resources, and it offers only a few short paragraphs. To my mind, it is not particularly notable as a film in general, but you could argue that the other evidence is that it is notable in the genre of "fan films". But how does one determine notability for that milieu? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm actually moving towards keep; like you I feel the overwhelming majority of fan fiction should be deleted with extreme prejudice, but the coverage in The Independent is pretty substantial, and at least two of the festivals seem notable. Not sure about the comic book resources, but if they're not being distributed by an independent medium then they are probably unreliable (for Wikipedia purposes). The article's still a horrible mess (the plot synopsis needs cutting down by about 75%), but I reckon notability has been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is enough of a mention (and usage) to make it "notable". Let's not get so hung up on the specifics of "rules", and look to the wider "notability". - jc37 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi JC. Thanks for chiming in. I'm all for keeping with the spirit of the law more so than the letter of the law. :-) And I admit that I'm biased against including fan films on Wikipedia in general. Are we going to let anyone with a camcorder who has posted their superhero video on YouTube have an article? (Don't answer that - it's a deliberately exaggerated rhetorical question.) This film appears to be more than that, but I'm still not convinced that these links constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". The notability guideline is just a guideline, but without it, what yardstick do we measure "fan films" by? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. However, in this case, unless I'm misreading this, there is some "real-world" notability to this. The problem just seems to be that it just seems to fall "between the cracks" of the general WP:N.
 * That said, if I'm missing something, please enlighten me. - jc37 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the coverage in the Independent is spectacularly unusual for a fan film. It is a full, in-depth article which features the film and its creator squarely as the primary subject.  So with such a substantial article, only some additional minor coverage needs to be found, which it has.  But just for good measure, this Google book search indicates that the film is included in the The Encyclopedia of Underground Movies.  However, the plot section could use a heavy dose of trimming and copyeditting. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch on Google Book Search! I wish they had more than a snippet view available for that book. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon second review, I retract the Google Book reference. The entry is for the documentary about the movie, and is not an entry for the movie itself.  However, that does not change my position, as the minor coverage in addition to a substantial Indpendent article is sufficient already to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:22, 14 November 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.