Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Threads Of Destiny

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. Tiptoety ^talk 03:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Threads Of Destiny

The PROD and any csd has been denied, so it's here. Non-notable fancruft film; those actors/writers/whatnot who's internal links dont resolve as red are links to people of different names. Ironho lds 02:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me clean it up? Its a serious article. Please. (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Delete Not a happy vote, since the film looks like fun, but sadly it doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you can get some qualified press coverage, this could find a place here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film hasn't been covered in reliable sources, just seems to be a home-brew fan film with almost entirely red linked actors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's worrying when one of the only bluelinks is English language Sceptre ^(talk) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this substitute IMDb page. JJL (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned and cleaned. Please give me a chance to find an independent source now. Sajberkg (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all fanfilm lacks notability. All resources are unreliable youtube and myspace. This article is not suitable in Wikipedia. Maybe in Wookiepedia, the Star Wars Wikia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is clear the creator oif the article is acting in good faith, the sources provided do not qualify as reliable third parties as required by WP:RS Beeblbrox (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references now, I hope its enough. Will add more when I find them.Sajberkg (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Wikipedia is not a place for fan based material ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfilms are almost never notable, and this one isn't even done yet! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fanfilm. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Ecoleetage. If Sajberkg can find suitable mainstream press coverage, it would be a happy addition to Wiki. So even though it will likely be deleted now, Sajberkg should copy the article to his sandbox and keep working at it. I would hope it to be a much stronger article when it returns. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I seem to be the sole dissenting voice here... But here goes. The only reason we have an AfD is because we agree that it is human judgment that is needed to decide whether we should keep something or not. Do consider the few dozen non-notable Hindu godmen that we have on Wikipedia who have sourcing from dubious sources, and then consider this nomination again. A google search yields 271,000 results and a Live Search 284,000. To those who say, come back later... If it is good enough for later, it is good enough for now. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the logic in "if it is good enough for later, it is good enough for now". We have set notability guidelines; what "if it is good enough.." means is for the article writer to come back after the film has, say, been created, if the film has independent media coverage or any kind of award and create it there. You can't leave an article on the grounds that "oh, it might fulfill the criterion in 4 months". Ignoring that Google hits are not an accepted way to gauge notability, lets take a look. If we put it in brackets so only that term is searched for (since most of said hits past page 3 are likely to simply be pages with "star wars" in them) we come up with 546 pages minus repeats. Of these nearly all of them are youtube trailers, forum posts and the films myspace site. Those don't indicate that the film is notable, they indicate the film creator can type. Ironho lds 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I want to keep citing this AfD for a long time to come. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As? Ironho lds 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fanfilm without significant outside coverage. The end. JuJube (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make that two dissenting voices! Forego (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (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.