Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum


 * 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. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers, no evidence of this notability has been provided. "I remember reading in a magazine" is not convincing, I am afraid. Fails to prove notability, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. Proto :: ►  10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable fan-dub. Google search on "Властелин Колец: Возвращение Бомжа" brings back only 169 unique on 479 returns, search on "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum" returns only two, both connected to this article. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems unlikely this will have gained any coverage, so nothing from which to construct an article. Trebor 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Abstain in light of developments below. I'm don't feel capable of judging on foreign language sources. Trebor 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom :: mikm t  19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keepPlease use Russian search engines for Russian language search. Yandex gives 16718 returns. It is a cult movie actually. Kneiphof 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that would satisfy WP:FILM? (I don't speak Russian, and number of results is not proof of notability). Trebor 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, it isn't a fan-dub, it's popular and is sold in many mainstream video stores. Also, please note that TheRealFennShysa's browser seems to have some bugs with Russian, because in fact Google gives over 40K hits. Max S em 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there multiple, independent sources for it, to show it qualifies under WP:N? And if there are, could you add them to the article? Thanks. Trebor 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added one as example. Max S em 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my search on the term only, not just all the words, is still valid - see here... please double check your sources before making claims like that. And this is most certainly a fan-dub, as the creator was never authorized by New Line, Peter Jackson, or the Tolkien estate to create this project. I'm also highly dubious of the unsourced claim above that this project is commerically available, as the film is nothing but massive copyright infringement. And just because something is a cult film doesn't automatically make it notable. TheRealFennShysa 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is commerically available in vary many locations. This, this and many other sites are online shop. I've got DVD with Goblin translation that was bought in regular film- and music store. Kneiphof 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not all countries enforce international copyright laws. While Russia may officially support them, it works differently on the street. Yes, Goblin did not get Jackson's permission, but I did see an article some time ago about Jackson offering to meet with Goblin in New Zealand to discuss a possible re-translation of the trilogy back into English. I don't remember the article or the magazine, but I thought I'd still mention it. Also, the translation is anything but a fan work, as it makes fun of many things, including the original film. Chronolegion 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, please don't alter other people's posts. That's bad form. Second, how would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chronolegion. --Comrade Che 1 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 12 January 2007 (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.