Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer

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 nomination was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer

I'm wavering, hence this AfD for peer review and decision. There are many Ghits, but all seem like well placed links to publicise this movie, which appears otherwise to be wholly non notable. IMDB has an entry, but those can be self placed. So thsi needs to be thought through by people here before a conclusion is reached. Convince me it is notable and I'll withdraw happily. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - It's hard to tell with this one. I get roughly 700 hits for the name, which is high, but I would still say sub-standard. I also can't tell if the company who did it is actually well known or not. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In light of the Wired article, I'm changing my vote to keep. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - For several reasons:
  1. ) This short-film is actually fairly famous amongst fans of the Buffyverse on the net and it often comes up on message boards, and although I can't find out how many downloads it has during the many years it has been freely available, I'm guessing it's at least thousands (considering that the new Angel fan film, Cherub was only released in February 2006, and already has over 100 000 downloads.
  2. ) Surely 690 google hits is more than a fair amount.
  3. ) Don't films deserve the right to an article as long as they does not break anything in the WP:Deletion Policy? "Fluffy" is a film, admittedly it is low low budget short-film (just over 18 minutes) that is seen by less people than a film like Star Wars, but "Fluffy" is still a film.
  4. ) Star Trek has been allowed articles on various of it's fan films, and in my opinion rightfully so. Check out these articles:
     • Star Trek (Fan made productions)
     • Starship Exeter
     • Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation
     • It was after I read these Star Trek articles, that I thought there might be some interest for the equivalent on Wikipedia for the Buffyverse. So I created the article: Buffyverse (Fan made productions), and Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer.

       Buffy and Angel are huge shows that have had a massive impact on pop culture and much of their audience. Only four fan films have been made, set in (or parodying) the Buffyverse. These are "Fluffy", "Cherub", "Consanguinity", and the upcoming "Forgotten Memories". Shouldn't Wikipedians be able to access information to the only four fan films related to the popular world of Buffy and Angel?

  5. ) Notability is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy ("official policy"). Wikipedia:Notability is not an official policy, it is an "essay expressing the opinions and ideas of some Wikipedians. While it can help explain and understand existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not an actual policy or guideline.".

     Notability can be a problem with say a local band in London, where people maybe unable to verify anything about the band. How would a wikipedian in France know the band truly even existed? This film is entirely verifiable by the external links available, it does not contain any original research. However in my opinion "Fluffy" along with "Cherub", "Consanguinity", & "Forgotten Memories"with are just about notable enough anyway.

  6. ) I only just created the article today and it could be hugely improved, give me a few days, and this article will be better. -- Paxomen 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Notability can be a problem with say a local band in London, where people maybe unable to verify anything about the band. — No. The problem with that band is verifiability. It is unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not permitted to have an article about it. The problem with a band is notability when the only sources of information about the band, that are to be had, are not independent of the band itself (e.g. reprinted press releases, advertisements, autobiographies, the band's web sites, and so forth). Uncle G 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's not a very good film, but it is known in the fan community. Also, Wired recently cited the film in an article on Whedonverse fanfilms, which satisfies WP:WEB on its own. MikeWazowski 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, mostly because I see it has an imdb listing. That, plus mention in Wired cited by MikeWazowski, which only mentions it in passing but calls it "one of the first widely watched Whedonverse fan films," puts it within the borderline for me. imdb user rating of 3.3/10? Wow, I do believe that's the lowest imdb rating I've ever seen. Even Blood Feast got more. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: From Justin to Kelly, 3rd worst movie ever with a 1.8. 3.3 isn't that low. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My life has been fortunate. If there are indeed movies worse than Blood Feast, I am glad that I have never seen them. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Good lord. It is notable after all! Well, only just by the look of the IMDB rating, but that in itself is notable! I thus withdraw my nomination. Since I see no "delete" comments I believe this may be closed currently. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote to Keep but I feel that maybe this entry should be expanded/merged into a larger article concerning itself with notable Buffy parodies, such as Fluffy... or Barry the Demon Hunter.Jayunderscorezero 11:16, 13 July 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.