Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hunt for Gollum


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hunt For Gollum
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE guidelines; as this is an unofficial, undistributed fan film it would have to be etremely notable to be given an article here, and I see no evidence of this.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to fail most of them.Slatersteven (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep, nonnotable fan film. Looks like I was wrong - plenty of sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any dissenting voices on this one? Open to discussion if there are.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You asked this question 2 hours and 24 minutes after nominating it, and after two other people had commented. In a discussion meant to last 7 days (or 5 days, I can never remember which). I found that surprising. Maybe wait a bit longer next time before asking if there are any dissenting voices? Anyway, my views: from what I can see, this fan film might not meet a specific notability guideline (SNG, here WP:MOVIE) but might well meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Sometimes SNGs do a poor job on picking up on other coverage a topic may have received. I commented to this effect in a recent AfD discussion that involved the WP:MILHIST notability guidelines. I'm also looking at the references that were present when you nominated the article for deletion. That is not a badly-done article, so clearly the text can be retained somewhere, even if not under this title, as the information is verifiable and informative for people reading about this topic, even if the topic itself might be better summarised elsewhere (such as in an overview article on Tolkien fandom and other responses to Tolkien - the main articles for that are Tolkien fandom, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien). There are some individual articles like this one that may be borderline, such as Born of Hope and Fellowship!, but The Hunt for Gollum clearly made much more impact than those two. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this article would be interesting and informative for a Lord of the Rings fan or researcher. Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could be re-categorized. Perhaps incorporated within the Middle Earth Portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Middle-earth) in the category Middle Earth Adaptations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Middle-earth_adaptations).Psteichen (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- 84user (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's all please AGF and not accuse anyone of deliberately ignoring news coverage or failing to do research before a nom. Coverage alone does not normally establish notability for a film unless it is widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally known critics. But if the consensus on this one is keep, then we keep. That's what discussion is for.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - discussion by NPR and the BBC are good enough for me to show that notability has moved beyond esoteric to general audience. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As shown by the references in the article, and its coverage in reliable sources which allow the topic to meet notability guidelines. It's prudent to do even a simple news check before pre-emptively deciding that notability could not exist. World-wide coverage is quite difficult to miss and harder to ignore .   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is any topic that might be sourced as notable through worldwide coverage in WP:reliable sources, film or not. The caveats at WP:NF, begin with the NF stating "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline"... which the topic most definitely does. The "indicative attributes" which you are quoting in good faith as if they were somehow mandates, are offered only to alert and encourage editors to circumstances that might be indicative of the wisdom of an expanded search for sources.  Quite specifically, the preamble to that list states "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:"  As has already been demonstrated, numerous reliable sources exist that meet WP:N.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep You click Google news search up top, and you can see it discussed in over a hundred news sources. I noticed Wired magazine talking about it in the second search result.  Remember, to save time, its always best to do a Google news search BEFORE you send something to AFD.   D r e a m Focus  02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can see how this would have been nominated ("a fan film?!!?"), but it did receive wide press coverage, and its really not an ordinary fanfilm.--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This fan film has received a very wide coverage; with a superficial googling, I get sources like slashdot, Wired, The Register, the BBC, Rotten Tomatoes, Metro, [], as does a news archives search:  Salon, The Times, Il Corriere della Serra, PC Welt, Bayerischer Rundfunk, La Tribune de Genève, Libération....  ¨¨ victor   falk  04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Question to the nominator Would you agree that your nomination should be withdrawn? I think you should reconsider your statement that widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally. As User:QSchmidt precisely explains, those conditions mustn't unconditionally be fulfilled; or do you mean that it is no case possible for a non-professional film to be notable? ¨¨ victor   falk  04:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (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.