Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm

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. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm

Not notable fan film. Viridae^Talk 03:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fan film, in preproduction (WP:NOT a crystal ball), and no reliable sources so we can't verify it either. --ColourBurst 04:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. --Ricaud 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 09:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• This is a fanfilm and if you do not believe me then visit the Bellflower's website, http://bellflower.sigil777.com, I know this because I am involved in it. I am the producer of it, so don't tell me that it isn't a notable fan film, because it is. It is also in pre-production so can you please take out the deletion note thing from the Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm article please. From pm_guy1987.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm guy1987 (talk • contribs)
  • If you can indicate some why in which this falls into one of wikipedia's notability criteria, you may have a chance of saving the article. However fanfilms rarely pass those criteria because they are only of interest to a very small subset of the community - if they have even heard of it. Viridae^Talk 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• How does this fanfilm not constitute a notable criteria?
• the wiki criteria says:
• 1. ...If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election...

• The preparation for the event IS indeed well documented. Construction has been photographed and video diaroes clearly displaying this are available for viewing at youtube. The sigil bellflower website also transcribes the fanfilm's progress from inception up until the current news. -Submitted by serenitynowinoz

• Comment When the wiki criteria talks about "well documented", it means with reliable sources. The website for sigil bellflower doesn't count as it has no editorial process and isn't a third party source. Youtube also has no editorial process and therefore can't be included as a source. ColourBurst 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; the crystallballism is secondary to the fan-filmness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (and I'm a member of Firefly WikiProject). When it's finished and released, that might be another matter. plange 01:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This just isn't notable, for me, and I'm a huge Firefly fan. Barnas 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I also am a member of WikiProject Firefly, but I can not fathom that articles lacking reliable sources about fanfilms are suitable encyclopedia subject. I withhold judgment as to the notability of the fanfilm after it comes out.-- danntm ^T _C 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. But an interesting project nonetheles! The Wookieepedian 02:45, 10 August 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.