Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance of the Goblins

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 delete. There were roughly twice as many delete comments as keeps (counting Drunkenmonkey111's "pie-in-the-sky" as a delete), and the keeps were very unconvincing (WP:CRYSTAL, and "tenacity" from an anonymous IP address) while the deletes gave more concrete reasons for the deletion: lack of coverage in reliable sources making it difficult to sort encyclopedic information from conflict-of-interest spin. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dance of the Goblins

Dance of the Goblins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

not sufficient notability for its own page. Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As above. (When googling, add the author's name, as there are things with the same name that are probably more notable.) IMDB etc used as references and other misleading claims.Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. A film version is in production, scheduled for release on 1 May. Timeineurope 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After watching Dragon's Den, it's clear that this film version is 'Pie-in-the-sky' stuff. ie-it's not going to happen anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenmonkey111 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There's self confessedly no funding for this film at present, so it's WP:CRYSTAL. First-timer's films are rarely listed before they're actually made. If it actually ever comes out in a notable form, feel free to re-create.Merkinsmum 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, practically self published- published by a publisher that has only produced a few separate books, hers and his own, and only a very limited amount sold.Merkinsmum 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. I wish her luck with the film but until it's made, fails WP:BK. -- DatRoot 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is also clearly routinely edited by the book's author put positive spin MrMarmite 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Just for the author's tenacity really. Never read the book, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own page having only sold a few hundred copies. 82.34.216.33 (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 'author's tenacity' can be a reason for an article, otherwise an awful lot of determined myspace bands would have an article.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2007 (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.