Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight: The Musical


 * 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   no consensus. Shereth 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Twilight: The Musical

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable web production, deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep has achieved a very modest level of coverage in RS. JJL (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as? I'm not challenging your judgement but if coverage exists, it would be nice if you could add it to the article. Cheers. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 16:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I did add three. I'm a little unsure about the second Examiner link--it's a passing reference and if it wasn't from teh same apper I'd wonder if it wasn't a spontaneous recreation of the title rather than a dierct reference. It's modest coverage but it satisfies WP:N/WP:RS for me. JJL (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced ropeofsilicon.com is a reliable source, there has been no discussion of it on WP that I can find and it seems to have characteristics of a blog. Most of the links in the article appear to be mirroring the ropeofsilicon article. This is a copy of the press release, a primary source. This seems to be independent coverage but it's superficial. Notability still seems doubtful to me. Accurizer (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Examiner is a reliable source.  as WP:V has been met. Despite its current appearance, per WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipedia accepts that an article may not spring into existance already perfect.  Within the WP:DEADLINE time allowed by Wikipedia, the article could be improved per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:PRESERVE.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC) (modified reasoning)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think am not sure that is the case, I asked at the reliable source noticeboard (Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and was pointed to a recent previous discussion that indicates a lack of the editorial oversight (and corresponding levels of accuracy) we usually demand of a reliable source (Reliable sources/Noticeboard). Guest9999 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I visited that forum. And I see that it is being aserted as an unreliable source based upon conjecture and assumption with none of the assertions being supported by documentation or qualification... simply opinion. Seeing which way the wind is blowing, I have modified my keep opinion above.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com is nothing like a reliable source, and anyone who has read WP:RS and looked at examiner.com would know that. On top of that, this user has been told this in AFDs in the past and should know not to try to make such baseless arguments. DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DG. You are accusing me of not reading guideline and not understanding that a source must considered in context to what is being sourced. Please read WP:NPA. Your continued denigrations of my efforts to help build an encyclopedia are not helpful in this or other discussion.  Once or twice, I might overlook, but you continue to denigrate and smear me.  Please cease the personal attacks.  It is however, interesting to note that you have opined delete for many articles only to have such articles improved, kept, and your opinions proven to be an incorrect and baseless, showing lack of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A non-Meyer endorsed parody of her works; it's usually a given that parodies and web videos of other properties are usually non-notable or violate the copyrights of those who actually bought the rights. Irregardless of the arguments or sourcing brought up in previous votes, that there's no source telling us the author commented at all on this production seals the deal for non-notability.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I did find this, but it's a press release. However, this and this look reliable. It looks as if there is enough coverage in reliable sources for an article. Tim  meh  16:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The kinds of sources being suggested here (such as immediately above) confirm only that it exists but do not possess the independent, reliable non-trivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why has a merge to a section at either Twilight series, Stephenie Meyer, or Twilight (movie) not even been considered per WP:ATD?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a Smeyer or Summit Entertainment-endorsed production. If it was from them, it would be a slam dunk, but fan productions hardly meet that standard.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... not to spout WP:OSE, but Star Wars has a section for fan works (Star Wars fan films) and cultural impact (Cultural impact of Star Wars)... why not this? Twilight not notable enough for consideration of such a section?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That has a long 33 year history of being established, however; there's been so much media from that work that there's plenty for the fans to digest and create, and some of it is endorsed by Lucasfilm. Here, you have a four year old franchise with four books and two movies as of far, and usually Smeyer isn't going to offer her endorsement of fan works. There's no comparing a young franchise with a stalwart.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage in the reliable sources linked above mean the article quite easily meets WP:N and WP:RS. The coverage in the sources is also far from being only a mention or two. The Dominator</tt><tt>TalkEdits</tt> 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I see a press release, two blog entries, and superficial coverage at www.yourmovies.com.au. Unless I am missing something, how does this satisty WP:WEB? Accurizer (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete meets WP:V but fails WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to one of the other Twilight articles. I agree, the level of coverage doesn't merit a separate page, however, the verifiable information here - and it may well only be a line or two - legitimately belongs in our coverage of this franchise. If better sources appear, it always can be broken back out into a separate article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:06, 1 July 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.