Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman: Dead End

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 – Gurch 15:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman: Dead End

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete. more fancruft. — Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - One of the most notable fanfilms out there - 79,000 Google hits, meets every qualification of WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Speedy Keep Per this [1] and this[2]. Certainly seems notable. Perhaps a bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep 79,000 hits for "Batman: Dead End" on google Markeer 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Kafziel 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable fan film. Vadder 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to Koenig's appearance (by analogy with WP:MUSIC, but definitely not a speedy keep). WP:WEB is irrelevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is WEB irrelevant? That's where this is. By law, fan fiction can't be sold; google hits, website rankings, etc. are how their popularity is measured. Kafziel 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the article isn't about the web site or the "internet phenomenon", but instead about the film. WEB doesn't speak to films. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying - the film itself is the Internet phenomenon. That's where you watch it. You can't buy it anywhere. It's only on the Internet. You can't measure its notability through ticket or DVD sales, because there aren't any. Kafziel 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably one of the most notable of recent fanfilms. Voice of Treason 14:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this even being considered for deletion? --Cataphract_40 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable fanfilm.--み使い Mitsukai 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and agree with Cataphract - WTF? DillPickle 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:POINT, anyone? (but perhaps not too much so) It *is* really hard to know the fine line to draw between what is encyclopedic and not when it comes to fandom articles. JRP 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't understand why this entry would not be considered relevant. "Numa Numa" has an entry as an "internet phenomenon", and the term does not even describe a tangible piece of media, etc.
• Strong Keep - This is a perfect example of a fan film and should stay as an entry to reference as one. Parody or imitation is standard practice in entertainment, and as such, fan films are in tribute to what is being imitated or parodied. If someone wears a sports jersey, sweatshirt, decorate their car or truck with flags or stickers of their favorite sports team and/or player is that any different than someone dressing up as Batman or a Empire Stormtrooper or a Starfleet officer at a fan convention? Why shouldn't a fan create something they enjoy not for profit, as many sports fan play baseball, basketball, hockey, flag football the same way?--D2K 19:54, 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.