Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Know A Jedi

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 7 keep, 16 delete (1 delete after the vote hit old) and evidence of sockpuppets trying to rig the vote. So delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Know A Jedi

Non-notable film, likely vanity. Google finds 33 unique links for "To know a Jedi" [1] (258 shown in heading, but advancing finds only 33). — Asbestos | Talk 23:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Delete)

• Keep Firstly, this is not a vanity because the people who created and have done much of the work on the page were not involved with the production of the film. Secondly, the film *is* notable because it is an example of the lengths to which some fans will go to show their enthusiam; it's a feature-length film based on Star Wars, done enitrely at cost and without any hope of direct financial compensation for their efforts. It is an example of the dedication some show to the Star Wars universe, as well as an excellent example of fan-produced fiction. — DoctorObvious 00:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons listed above by Doc, this film is neither vanity nor non-notable. Further evidence of its non-vanity nature can be found by looking at the history for the page. But as to notability, I am curious about Asbestos' use of the number of Goolge hits as an item of evidence. When did Google hits become the Wikipedia measure of notability? How many are needed to become notable? Why is it OK for Wikipedia to have articles related to obscure subjects which may generate many hits but not ones which may generate few hits? Is Wikipedia owned in whole or part by Google? Would hits on Yahoo or some other search engine be acceptable? — GunnerJ 00:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• An entry at imdb might. As for now, delete as non-notable. RickK 00:34, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • This standard would limit discussions of a large number of works of fan-fiction to the theoretical rather than concrete. Further, there is a big difference between "notable," meaning of note or interest, and "well-known." Unless you wish to support an argument that a film is not interesting if it doesn't have a page on imdb.GunnerJ 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You get it. Fan fiction is not encyclopedic, and rarely meets the notability level needed to be kept on Wikipedia. RickK 06:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you please state your operating definition of "notability?" I don't think the word means what you think it does. Also, why isn't fan fiction "encyclopedic?" As a cultural phenomenom, it certainly seems to have a place of note in an encyclopedia. Given that Wikipedia has a page on fan-fiction, your claim seems baseless. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems a bit like 'Troops' or 'George Lucas in Love', ceptin' that it doesn't seem as good. I believe the above post is GunnerJ's second edit, and that he joined Wikipedia four minutes before writing it. DoctorObvious, on the other hand, is the article's writer. Presumably GunnerJ is therefore the co-screenwriter, or best boy, or bassist, or something. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have been participating on Wikipedia for a long time, but only joined so that my vote could be registered as coming from a reachable source. I did in fact help in the writing of the article, although it was my idea to start one in the first place. (I assume that is what you meant by "co-screenwriter." If you meant to imply that either Doc or I were involved in the making of TKAJ, please present your evidence.) Can you explain what bearing how long I've been a registered member has on either the argument I presented or the vote to delete the article? Or the relevence of the quality of the movie has in comparison to those you listed? GunnerJ 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Can you explain what bearing how long I've been a registered member has on either the argument I presented or the vote to delete the article?" - yes; the impression I received was that the article's writer was either (a) fabricating your username as a sockpuppet in order to cadge an extra vote or (b) he had recruited you from the outside world to help his case. In any case I wasn't convinced by your argument. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That you were not impressed by my arguments does not refute them. Sorry. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Taking your points in order, the answers are "more than 257", "if lots of individual people search for and/or link to them, they aren't obscure", "Wikipedia is not owned by Google", "Possibly; show us". As for your current argument, if the film was eighty-nine hours long and had taken one hundred people nine years of their free time to create then - even if it were an undiscovered masterpiece - it would nonetheless not be notable if it had not yet attracted significant attention in the wider world, or if was not in some other way highly influential and/or persistent. Frinstance, I believe that Kenneth Higney's obscure 1976 proto-punk/skronk lp 'Attic Demonstration' is a fantastic record which should have been huge, but it still doesn't deserve a place on Wikipedia because that's just my opinion. Wikipedia's notability standard does not lean heavily on folk memory. The memory has to be written down, by disinterested parties. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • In this instance, I'll be counting his vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 00:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - fancruft. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I think if it was more notable it would have received at least some attention at The Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards (despite its length). LizardWizard 01:10, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I count at least 3 submission rules that disqualifies TKAJ from the FFA: 1) Length (which you acknowledge). 2) It is not a parody, which is explicitly mentioned as being a requisite for acceptance. 3) Excessive swearing and explicit sexual content. Based on the linked requirements, it's clear that the Fan Film Awards are not meant to be all inclusive of the Star Wars fan fiction community, and that To Know A Jedi does not fall into the fairly narrow category that they constructed for their award show. DoctorObvious 06:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might merit a mention in a variety of articles where Star Wars fan manifestations would be in context. But as a film that has not been released (except maybe as a download on the Internet), it isn't notable. Apparently it hasn't even received attention in venues that spotlight Star Wars fan films, not that it would make much difference to my vote if it had. --BM 01:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Perhaps a mention in another Star Wars related article might be better. Carrp | Talk 01:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. kaal 01:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. There have been other independent films retained on Wikipedia before. Megan1967 02:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There have? Can you name a couple? RickK 06:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Shaun of the Dead, Bride and Prejudice, Steamboy, A Very Long Engagement, Kinsey (movie), Sideways, House of Flying Daggers, Bad Education, Enduring Love, The Machinist - all of these films are listed as independent on imdb [2]. Megan1967 07:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • For crying out loud, that's not comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing apples and machine tools, and bending the term "independent" all out of shape. I mean, Warner Brothers help finance A Very Long Engagement, just to note one example.
      • As for IMDB, while being listed there isn't a measure of notability, NOT being listed there is most certainly a measure of obscurity. Delete.--Calton 12:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Obscurity is not the same as unnotablity. GunnerJ 18:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • No, they're spelled differently. This is article is a press release and its subject is a home video with pretensions, but if you boys get a DVD release or get sued by Lucasfilm, give us a yell, okay? --Calton 10:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The question isn't about its independent status, the question is about its notability. Those are all serious productions and have generated a lot of media hype. They have all played at my local movie theater. This is a college film-class work, or similar, has recieved no media attention at all, and has absolutely zero chance of playing at my movie theater. Going out with a movie camera and some of my friends doesn't grant my film "indie"-status, nor a place in Wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk 09:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't see how the movie "counting" or "not counting" as an "independant film" really matters. The fact is, despite how few people have heard of it, it is an example of enthusiasm for a item of pop-culture that many people unaware of how serious many fan communities are may find interesting. That you do not find this personally interesting does not make it unnotable. GunnerJ 18:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • • It does when it's only fan work and not professional. It's no more notable than somebody's slash story becoming an article. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know if you're being disingenuous, Megan, or if you really think the movies you listed are the same thing as this. Those movies have been released in theaters and reviewed by professional critics in major newspapers. This one has none of those things. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My search of news web sites didn't return any hits. If it were truly noteworthy and worthy of encyclopedic mention, wouldn't the news wires have written a blurb on it? — Brim 10:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • The first definition of the word "notable" (as an adjetive) on dictionary.com is "Worthy of note or notice; remarkable." None of the definitions say anything about news wires carrying blurbs, or google hits. I'm having a hard time thinking of many fan-produced films of the same length and representing the same level of resource investment as TKAJ. I contend that that in itself is worthy of remark, notice, or at the very least interest. I am not vouching for the quality of the movie, only the level of effort or committment put into it. GunnerJ 18:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Simply expand the article to include info about its relation to the entire community of Star Wars fandom. -- Old Right 10:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It HAS no relation to the community. Nobody knows about it except its creators, apparently. RickK 23:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Statement retracted) GunnerJ 18:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This does have a rather large bearing on the star wars fan community especially at Fanfilms.com and the forums attached to it. It pains me to say this but, the idea that people poured a huge amount of their spare time into one of the best examples of a fanfilm ever made, only to be trashed by people who are probably too shortsighted to see past their own nose and definatley didn't watch the movie and care only about technicalities is disgusting. If these people were in charge during world war two, this post would be written in German right now. It's a little harsh I know, but seriously folks, there is a large community that has interest in this out there. if the creators put up a whole bunch of money to put this in theaters would you stop complaining? Jeez, quit the nitpicking. Besides, isn't their an articleabout fanfilms on here too? Why aren't you complaining about that? According to SOME PEOPLE, their is no fanfilm community!!! And if there was , its a couple of guys with cameras and way too much time on their hands! SOME PEOPLE need to take a reality pill, get off their high horse and admit maybe they don't know everything! DarthLowBudget
  • User's only edit. RickK 07:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I won't be taking their vote into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • DarthLowBudget, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for getting publicity and becoming notable. If the film you are describing is as important as you say, then it will become notable without any help from the Wikipedia. When it does, it will be a fit subject for an encyclopedia. Until then, it isn't. When people here say that it isn't notable, they aren't saying that the film is bad, or that it will never be notable. They are saying it isn't famous or notable enough now for an encyclopedia article. --BM 13:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Have we already managed to evoke Godwin's law just over a fan film? — Asbestos | Talk 10:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a Wikipedia entry for fan films already. This film, while significant in being one of the few to break into the "feature length" timeframe, has nothing about it -- no news coverage, no notable impact on the greater filmmaking or Star Wars communities -- that makes it worthy of its own standalone entry distinct from the entry discussing fan films in general. EDIT: Well, I THOUGHT there was a wiki entry for fan films, but I can't seem to find the bloody thing. If there isn't one, perhaps it would be appropriate to create one. DorkmanScott
  • User's only edits are to this page. RickK 04:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I made a few edits to the Star Wars entry, specifically the section regarding lightsabers and filming with them, but that was before I was registered, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a different IP to boot. Not that it should really matter. I'm a member of the fan film community and was asked to weigh in on this, since I actually have seen the film and can speak from an informed opinion. It was a good fan film, but not worth its own entry. I'll start editing around here like mad if it makes my opinion more worthwhile. DorkmanScott
      • Sounds good to me. I'll count your vote. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Time to get To Know A Delete. —RaD Man (talk) 09:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a rare gem of a fanfilm - it expands far beyond simply having two guys in bathrobes hitting each other with sticks in the back yard. The only reason that the film hasn't recieved a warmer welcome in the community is its language. Lusiphur79
  • User has two edits, both to this VfD. Carrp | Talk 13:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I won't take this vote into account - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Actually, Dorkman makes a good point. I retract my previous statment. delete away. DarthLowBduget
• Definately keep this - I saw it randomly on recent changes, and really liked it. It brightened up my day to see this example of Star Wars fandom - it's real information about a real film, albeit one that I wouldn't be able to read about many other places. It's these kinds of obscure gems that make Wikipedia great. 195.158.6.172 07:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to take this vote into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I saw this film almost a year ago, and have since gained alot of respect for the type of work it is. I didn't even know about the world of fanfilms until I saw this, and once I started looking into the other things that were out there, I have to say I was pretty disappointed. By and large, the other films out there seek only to create an excuse to experiment with sub-par visual effects and duel with lightsabers. This one is in a category of about 3% of those works that makes a genuine effort (and in many cases succeeds, but as DorkmannScott pointed out, does also fail) in establishing a unique, dramatic, and narratively driven piece that in my opinion, makes it exceptional. For those accusing this piece of having not been known, or seen, you're very mistaken. It's a staple amongst what I've discovered in the FanFilm world in the last year, and the fact that the Wikipedia crowd was unaware of its existence, I feel, is proof to the fact that such a film should be listed as an anchor to the FanFilm sub-category. People can argue if its "note-worthy" all they want. The fact is that if an effort like this, one well recognized in its own right, doesn't have a place in a sub-category on Wikipedia, then how the heck does the Star Wars "fat kid" deserve a listing for playing with a golf-ball retriever followed by his parents subsequently sueing the other pre-pubescents parents for posting the clip on the web? Gimme a break. If someone can successfully argue that that kid is more encyclpedic material than what I consider to be among the best in the Star Wars fanfilm category, please do. Perhaps then I'll vote a delete.--63.211.54.170 01:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The Star Wars kid received news coverage in various web and print media, a section on Yahoo!, numerous websites mirroring the site, a petition to put him in Episode III, a site dedicated to raising funds to pay him back for the laughs at his expense -- in a word, massive and global recognition. To Know a Jedi is known by a small handful of people on a few obscure internet forums. This is not the place to gain something recognition, this is a place to document something that is already widely recognized as a pop culture phenomenon. The "Star Wars Kid," for better or worse, is one. "To Know a Jedi," I'm sorry, is not.
• Keep - I've just watched the fan-film and after seeing it, I'd say it definately deserves a wiki-page. It's so well done that I'm sure it will eventually become really well known amongst Star Wars fans, which earns it a lot of recognition. -- Crevaner 11:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep user:cooter08865
• Delete, slash fancruft. Wyss 10:20, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is supposed to be a good, open-content encyclopedia. With the possibility of infinite expansion via the internet, I see no reason why this article should be deleted as it is (a) informative, (b) well written, and (c) not vanity. Deleting Wikipedia articles that people make that are inappropriate or about generally stupid is acceptable and expected, however articles that contain real content and had time put in do not deserve to be deleted. --pzgamer825 00:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually by IP 24.58.238.87. Username doesn't exist. IP only has edits to this page. — Asbestos | Talk 09:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote won't be taken into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps slightly more intricate fan-fiction than most, but still fan-fiction. Come back when it becomes as popular as the Star Wars Kid. -R. fiend 07:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity fan fiction. —Korath (Talk) 20:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 06:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.