Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse (Fan made productions)

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 Paxomen's conditional keep. Verification is a serious issue here. If the article doesn't base itself on reputable sources (and note, as W.Marsh says, that this may include a rename) by some point in the relatively near future (Paxomen said two weeks--I'd give it a little more time), I plan to reopen and relist this debate. Chick Bowen 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffyverse (Fan made productions)

Buffyverse (Fan made productions) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An entire article devoted to non-notablem unverifiable copyvio Internet fancruft. Other articles related, such as Cherub (Buffyverse) are in AfD also. A Strongest Possible Delete vote from me; fanfic does not belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I removed quite a lot of links from that article a couple of months ago. I suggest sending the non notable fan made articles and the {{Buffyfanfilms}} template to deletion too (note that the template has an external link!). The article could become encyclopedic with rewording and sourcing, though. -- ReyBrujo 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete precedent says that fanfiction isn't generally notable and I don't see anything special about this. Demiurge 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete these seem nice, but without coverage by independent reputable sources, it can not overcome the presumption that fanfiction is not-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft, nn bloody fanfcruft. SkierRMH,08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If these works were written about in film reviews or magazines or newspapers they would be notable, regardless of all the gnashing of teeth here and in the article about who owns the copyright. If they had a huge number of downloads, that might make them notable under emerging notions of what is notable internet television programs. I did not see such claims in the article. If there is a Buffypedia or Whedonpedia fanfic such as this would be right at home, but it does not appear to have a high degree of general notability. Edison 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cherub had over 100 000 downloads after its first three months, also as has now been mentioned elsewhere (and I just added a few footnotes), many of these films have been discussed by Wired the fairly famous technology magazine. ~ Buffyverse 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - The indivdual films are up for AfD as well right now, but I think that this article could be substantially improved by merging some content here rather than having indivdual articles. I could then just include key verifiable information on each of the five films, with as much referencing throughout as possible. Also I have completely removed the less notable 'Virtual Seasons' projects, leaving only the films.

According to official policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) I thought articles were only supposed to be deleted if they were unverifiable, if they contained original research, or if they didn't have a balanced point of view? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, and a disputed one at that (as I write this that article has a tag pointing out some people disagree it even deserves 'guideline' status).

IMHO the topic is just about enough notable. The various films have been covered from some outside sources, e.g. Machinima.com (site about this emerging new technology used by filmmakers), Imdb.com (site which chronicles TV and films), and The Stranger (Seattle newspaper). Most important IMO is the article from Wired Fans reclaim the Whedonverse. The journalist who wrote that article even said this of Cherub (one of the films): "it's easy to believe that one day soon, the format [Cherub's] cast and crew are pioneering will challenge network TV the way blogs have challenged publishing.". (Newitz, Annalee, "Fan Films Reclaim the Whedonverse", Wired.com (June 8, 2006), page 2)

A lot of work went into the creation of these articles. It would be great if people were willing to accept some improvements to Wikipedia rather than completely remove all information on the topic.

-- Paxomen 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep largely because of the precident set by other fanfilm entires on Wikipedia (IE: Star Wars, Star Trek and Batman) -- Majin Gojira 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Title says it "fanmade". If they were notable it would be O.K. And how is this keeping a low profile ? Cnriaczoy42 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Then don't just single this section out. If you're going to delete one article on fan-productions, propose the deletion of them all. People forget how complete Wikipedia really is and delete things when there is already a precident set. Pick a stance and carry it all the way through. Don't just half-do it. -- Majin Gojira

Keep Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone. - Phoenix

Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - per paxomen. When the AfDs are finished they will create an opportunity to substantially improve this article, but focusing only on the most notable projects (maybe we could even rename to fan films, and then only include the most notable fan films) and I can cope with completely excluding less notable fan fiction to make some people happy. Although really articles should be judged on official policy and not on disputed guidelines. ~ Buffyverse 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Majin Gojira, though goodness knows it pains me to say it. WMMartin 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Looked at in the Wired article. Boffy Layer 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• The wired article (and the other sources) don't seem to use the term "Buffyverse". If this is kept and a sufficient source can't be found for the term "Buffyverse", a rename should be in order. --W.marsh 20:33, 10 December 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.