The result was Paxomen's conditional keep. Verification is a serious issue here. If the article doesn't base itself on reputable sources (and note, as W.Marsh says, that this may include a rename) by some point in the relatively near future (Paxomen said two weeks--I'd give it a little more time), I plan to reopen and relist this debate. Chick Bowen 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
An entire article devoted to non-notablem unverifiable copyvio Internet fancruft. Other articles related, such as Cherub (Buffyverse) are in AfD also. A Strongest Possible Delete vote from me; fanfic does not belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
According to official policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion policy) I thought articles were only supposed to be deleted if they were unverifiable, if they contained original research, or if they didn't have a balanced point of view? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, and a disputed one at that (as I write this that article has a tag pointing out some people disagree it even deserves 'guideline' status).
IMHO the topic is just about enough notable. The various films have been covered from some outside sources, e.g. Machinima.com (site about this emerging new technology used by filmmakers), Imdb.com (site which chronicles TV and films), and The Stranger (Seattle newspaper). Most important IMO is the article from Wired Fans reclaim the Whedonverse. The journalist who wrote that article even said this of Cherub (one of the films): "it's easy to believe that one day soon, the format [Cherub's] cast and crew are pioneering will challenge network TV the way blogs have challenged publishing.". (Newitz, Annalee, " Fan Films Reclaim the Whedonverse", Wired.com ( June 8, 2006), page 2)
A lot of work went into the creation of these articles. It would be great if people were willing to accept some improvements to Wikipedia rather than completely remove all information on the topic.
-- Paxomen 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep largely because of the precident set by other fanfilm entires on Wikipedia (IE: Star Wars, Star Trek and Batman) -- Majin Gojira 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Title says it "fanmade". If they were notable it would be O.K. And how is this keeping a low profile ? Cnriaczoy42 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone. - Phoenix
Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - per paxomen. When the AfDs are finished they will create an opportunity to substantially improve this article, but focusing only on the most notable projects (maybe we could even rename to fan films, and then only include the most notable fan films) and I can cope with completely excluding less notable fan fiction to make some people happy. Although really articles should be judged on official policy and not on disputed guidelines. ~ Buffyverse 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep. Looked at in the Wired article. Boffy Layer 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Paxomen's conditional keep. Verification is a serious issue here. If the article doesn't base itself on reputable sources (and note, as W.Marsh says, that this may include a rename) by some point in the relatively near future (Paxomen said two weeks--I'd give it a little more time), I plan to reopen and relist this debate. Chick Bowen 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
An entire article devoted to non-notablem unverifiable copyvio Internet fancruft. Other articles related, such as Cherub (Buffyverse) are in AfD also. A Strongest Possible Delete vote from me; fanfic does not belong on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
According to official policy ( Wikipedia:Deletion policy) I thought articles were only supposed to be deleted if they were unverifiable, if they contained original research, or if they didn't have a balanced point of view? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, and a disputed one at that (as I write this that article has a tag pointing out some people disagree it even deserves 'guideline' status).
IMHO the topic is just about enough notable. The various films have been covered from some outside sources, e.g. Machinima.com (site about this emerging new technology used by filmmakers), Imdb.com (site which chronicles TV and films), and The Stranger (Seattle newspaper). Most important IMO is the article from Wired Fans reclaim the Whedonverse. The journalist who wrote that article even said this of Cherub (one of the films): "it's easy to believe that one day soon, the format [Cherub's] cast and crew are pioneering will challenge network TV the way blogs have challenged publishing.". (Newitz, Annalee, " Fan Films Reclaim the Whedonverse", Wired.com ( June 8, 2006), page 2)
A lot of work went into the creation of these articles. It would be great if people were willing to accept some improvements to Wikipedia rather than completely remove all information on the topic.
-- Paxomen 10:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep largely because of the precident set by other fanfilm entires on Wikipedia (IE: Star Wars, Star Trek and Batman) -- Majin Gojira 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Title says it "fanmade". If they were notable it would be O.K. And how is this keeping a low profile ? Cnriaczoy42 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Why does it matter? It won't kill you to keep it up. There are a lot of pages that don't affect everyone. - Phoenix
Keep & allow improvement in 2 weeks after this AfD - per paxomen. When the AfDs are finished they will create an opportunity to substantially improve this article, but focusing only on the most notable projects (maybe we could even rename to fan films, and then only include the most notable fan films) and I can cope with completely excluding less notable fan fiction to make some people happy. Although really articles should be judged on official policy and not on disputed guidelines. ~ Buffyverse 11:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep. Looked at in the Wired article. Boffy Layer 17:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply