Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Awakening: A Star Wars Fan Film

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, early close per WP:SNOW. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Awakening: A Star Wars Fan Film

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fan-film. —teb728 t c 21:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no claim of importance. Whenever I see the work acclaim with no reference, I know it is just puffery. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this comes nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG. WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:COI apply as well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11, A7, and A11, and tagged as such. A fan film is almost never going to receive reliable coverage, and this one is no exception. There's not even a credible claim of importance. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A7 does not apply to a film (unless it is strictly a web video). A11 does not apply because this is a actual film not something that the author just made up. G11 doesn't apply because if the film were notable, the article could be made encyclopedic without a fundamental rewrite. —teb728 t c 06:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TEB728: From what I've seen, it is a web video. To be specific, it's on Vimeo. And it isn't notable; it hasn't been the subject of reliable coverage, so even if it wouldn't fall under any CSD criteria, it would still fail WP:NFILM. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vimeo is just a 1-minute trailer. But you may be right that it is a web video, for the facebook page has a 38-minute youtube, which I think is the whole film. I don't see now where I got the idea there was some other release. In any case it certainly fails WP:NFILM. —teb728 t c 08:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we might as well let the AFD run its course, since it's already gotten plenty of attention. If nothing else, it'll make it easier to re-delete re-creations. —Cryptic 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once the article is deleted, I recommend that it be seasoned permanently. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll deal with that when and if it's re-created. —Cryptic 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing obvious in the way of reliable sources out there, but more importantly the film would be better off and more successful without a WP page - it'll end in tears. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independently and reliably sourced. I wasn't able to find anything. —Cryptic 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I am somewhat appalled to discover Category:Fan films based on Star Wars. —Cryptic 08:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised in the slightest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was surprised, just appalled. And at least as much at the films listed there that have sources as at the ones that don't. —Cryptic 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. This belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per total absence of notability. Speedy should have gone through, this just exists online, evidently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, it's solely a YouTube video, which would seem to indicate that it's web-only content and thus eligible for speedy deletion. But I guess there's no harm in a full seven day AfD. I don't think anyone's going to find reliable sources for this, though. It looks to have 32 hits total on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry NRP, but A7 does not apply. It may be "web content", but it makes an assertion of notability in its claim to be based upon the Star wars universe. A11 does not apply as thing thing exists and can be watched. G11 does not apply as it simply offering information is not "blatant". Readers could watch the thing themselves and read the end credits. AFD for a "film" failing WP:NF is the proper choice. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. But, as this was released less than a week ago, I'd opine the jury is not in just yet. In some cases tagging something from an inexperienced nob for a speedy within 25 minutes of it being contributed could be a bit bitey. But at least nominator TEB728 gave this new article a whole hour and 14 minutes. If or when it does gain suitable coverage, we can allow it to be undeleted and returned to mainspace. No need to salt unless it becomes the object of repeated recreations. As there is no such recreation history, salting is unnecessary. I do believe that article creator Kwjones30 is the same person as cinematographer/editor/composer Kevin Wendell Jones, and I would advise KWJ visit WP:PRIMER, pay attention to WP:COI, and respect the consensus reached here. He can ping me on my talk page if he feels it finally gains the requisite coverage to meet WP:NF. @Narutolovehinata5: being an internet-only or being "fan film" does not automatically equate to non-notability... as some such have indeed established suitable notability, and it is just barely possible this might too. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally said it should be salted since it had previously been deleted as A7. Really, I still feel that it does. There's not credible claim to notability in the article whatsoever. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.