Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - please see my comments about Star Wreck (link to AFD)- there are plenty of mainstream media articles about this series, including CNN. [1] It's unquestionably notable. BigDT 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck, unless that one also doesn't survive the AFD, otherwise delete. However, the sum of the Star Wreck articles would seem to be notable. JRP 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very notable movie. Why this Holy War against fiction? JIP | Talk 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. -- GWO
• Merge, with Star Wreck. - Motor (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Star Wreck. 3-4 million downloads reported, award winner, on IMDB, shown on television (not in the US but this is not Americapedia I think), many mentions in newspapers. This is not a couple of guys messing around with a camcorder like your average fan film. I think merge+redirect is perfectly reasonable too since there is only one movie in the series so far. Weregerbil 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, there is more than one movie. Only one of them is full-length and with professional quality, though. JIP | Talk 10:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not fancruft: download statistics and being shown on national television clearly indicate interest beyond hardcore Star Trek fans. Well written article about a notable free content indie film; nomination makes about as much sense as calling Spaceballs "Star Wars fancruft". Merge would be (barely) acceptable, but I see no harm in having distinct articles — we're not paying by the article count here. (Disclaimer: I own an official copy of "In the Pirkinning". I don't watch Star Trek, though.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Star Wreck if that article survives VfD. I really don't believe every single Trek fanfilm ever created merits its own Wikipedia article. SJennings 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not "every single Trek fanfilm". Do you know any other Trek fanfilm that has had 1.5 million downloads, has been mentioned in a country-wide newspaper, has been mentioned in TV news even in foreign countries, and has been shown on national TV? I have said it before, but one more time: just because it's done by fans does not automatically mean it has to be deleted. JIP | Talk 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Wreck or delete if Star Wreck does not survive its own AfD.--Isotope23 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck, since this is a fan show, only one article is needed for the time being. --Terence Ong 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Star Wreck. (Could go either way.) Meets WP:WEB, if nothing else. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep aired on Finnish TV, features professional actors, followed by national media. -- Hawaiian717 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep alone, clearly demonstrates notability.  Grue  19:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wreck. The contents of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning and Star Wreck overlap considerably.Punainen Nörtti 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If we're going to be merging Samuli Torssonen and all the other minor Star Wreck articles into Star Wreck, as the emerging consensus seems to be, the article will grow considerably and will require a major rewrite. Tossing Pirkinning into the mix wouldn't IMHO be a very good fit. The redundancy could (and should) be eliminated in the process. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not yet convinced that we actually need two articles. Also the articles on Samuli Torssonen and the 4 1/2 film repeat the same facts that can already be found on Star Wreck and In the Pirkinning article. The extra information in In the Pirkinning article not found in the other articles consists of detailed trivia on characters, spaceships and sometimes even explanation of the jokes of the movie. IMHO a part of that could be deleted, for example I doubt that we need the detailed analysis of the Kari Grandi joke in the article. I still suspect that after rewrite the current material amounts to one good article, but of course I'd be glad to see two good articles.Punainen Nörtti 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • We definitely do not need a detailed analysis of how Finnish culture glorifies drunkenness in the article. I've already written an article on the original Kari Grandi commercials, this should suffice as an explanation. JIP | Talk 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Say what you will about other SW articles, SW:ITP was a phenomenally successful and a well-known movie for above-cited reasons. This was a Major Event for Finnish Cinema. =) And anyway, as noted above, this article is pretty extensive, and would be really, really difficult to merge to Star Wreck anyway. Can't really hurt to have an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate fancruft as much as the next editor and probably more than most, but this ain't fancruft. If you want to do Wikipedia a favour, go nominate something like Star Wars Republic 76: The Siege of Saleucami (and the other several dozen articles in that series on individual non-notable issues of a non-notable comic). That's fancruft. — Haeleth Talk 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to disagree a little - the comic seems to be notable, but individual issues of it are not. JIP | Talk 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The most viewed finnish film of all time, and a milestone in open content distribution. Hohenberg 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the examples for notable fan created content, also for meeting WP:WEB. Kusma (討論) 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep StarWreck is very notable in every aspect, plus it did Finnish movie history, with over 3 milj. viewers world-wide. It is very big thing, because those guys did that only for fun and hobby, not for money - i think that is notable. And we should respect that!-Solarius 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, certainly notable enough. --KFP 22:15, 15 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.