Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Revelations

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 of the debate was keep. – Robert 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars: Revelations

• delete nn-cruft, doesn't meet WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable, possibly one of the most notable fan films ever created. Are you just going around putting everything you can find that has to do with fan fiction up for deletion? Kafziel 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as per Kafziel. Milkandwookiees seems to be suddenly nominating an awful lot of articles for deletion on very flimsy reasoning. wikipediatrix 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable fan film. Vadder 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- per above. Possible WP:POINT going on here? TheRealFennShysa 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Is there a pattern today? The Wookieepedian 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly not notable. Made on a porn budget, starring NN actors as for porn, and if it were porn we'd delete it with no second thoughts. We may not have a specific guidelines for films, but if this were music it would fail WP:MUSIC and be validly deleted, and nor would it be notable as a book. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability of actors is not a criterion for notability of a film. By the way - it passes the music test just fine. Kafziel 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails the porn test. And we wouldn't apply different criteria to naked and non-naked acting, right? -- GWO

Wrong, actually. What's with you and the porn test? Did somebody delete some porn articles you posted or something? When did that become the standard for all films? There's a whole lot more amateur porn out there than amateur Star Wars films. Kafziel 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - and just what is this porn test? if you're referring to WP:PORN BIO, let's just deconstruct this a little, huh?

• 1. Over 100 films - shouldn't apply, as even major actors would fail this.
• 2. Awards - look here.
• 3. Playmate of the Year - obviously not relevant.
• 4. Noteworthy contributions - this is one people can argue all day, but I'll say they pass, for pulling off a remarkable looking film for very little money.
• 5. Performer crossover - refers to individuals, not a film, so not relevant to this entry.
• 6. Noteworthy News piece - here's where you get slammed - The film has had news coverage from CNN, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, G4, CBC, the Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Slate, Access Hollywood, New Zealand Herald, Baltimore Sun, and wire stories from KnightRidder, among others.
• 7. applies to individual performers - again, not relevant.

I'd say that this quite definitely passes your "porn test". And that was with just a quick basic Google search. Just for the record. TheRealFennShysa 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Applies to fan films for exactly the same reason it applies to porn. You can knock fan films out in a week. -- GWO

2. Best Star Wars fan film? What's the field, 20?

6. News coverage != Noteworthy News Piece. Being mentioned in a newspaper is note the same as being the subject of a news article. -- GWO

1. Fanfilms are much harder than porn films

2. This list is profoundly incomplete, and it has 36. -LtNOWIS 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PORN BIO. I can't resist writing that in this context. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Between Slashdot (and the scads and scads of other coverage), its awards, how many people saw it, etc. I think keeping this is a serious no-brainer. --maru (talk) contribs 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Meets WP:WEB, and possibly WP:FILM. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if WP:FILM spoke to the criteria for inclusion, then we wouldn't see references to WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC and WP:PORN BIO (which is not actually what I meant above; my analogy was with equally unnotable porn films rather than the performers). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Notability for comments on the lack of such criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you say WP:FILM doesn't apply here at all, and yet maintain that it is the only applicable guideline by which to judge Batman: Dead End? Both are fan-made, web-based films. Either WP:FILM applies, or WP:WEB applies. Which is it? Kafziel 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep - tons of media references BigDT 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fan cruft. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to meet WP:WEB and as a fan-film. Voice of Treason 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable given the media coverage. BryanG^(talk) 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because it's a "fan" entry doesn't mean it shouldn't also be covered. --IceflamePhoenix 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TheRealFennShysa -LtNOWIS 02:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per massive media coverage. Grandmasterka 06:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mauro Bieg 09:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I haven't heard of this before, but it looks like it's a very good quality fan film, and almost as famous as Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. And I don't see what it has to do with porn. JIP | Talk 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because it would bring an entirely new meaning to "Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?" AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, for reasons stated above. --Koveras 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I may be relatively new, and not say much here on Wikipedia, but I consider this film to be highly notable. Just because it's made by fans doesn't mean it is not worthy of notice. --Village Idiot 03:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP This is a perfect example of a fan film. I don't know who this guy is trying to eliminate all these fan films, but this and many of the articles he's nominated for deletion are certainly very notable to keep. --D2K 19:41, 13 June 2006 (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.