Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelion: ReDeath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ReDelete. east.718 at 01:00, 11/4/2007

[edit] Evangelion: ReDeath

Evangelion: ReDeath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No independant sourcing to show any sort of notability to this. TexasAndroid 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. While fan parody is fun, it's often not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The three references included in the article appear to be from some kind of blog or forum which are not usually good secondary, verifiable sources of information. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Neon Genesis Evangelion media - needs better sourcing, but an outright deletion is a bit heavy-handed IMO. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I would oppose that merger, as it's not a real NGE product. 132.205.99.122 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete despite the title, this isn't part of Evangelion, it's fans making up a silly soundtrack to go along with video footage from the show and putting it on YouTube, where it's not exactly popular even by Youtube standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge (create) into Neon Genesis Evangelion in popular culture. I think that Peon Hentai EvanJellyOn [1] [2] is more notable, and it doesn't have an article. 132.205.99.122 20:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Two things to note: firstly, "...in popular culture" articles tend to drop like flies when they hit AfD, and even then usually fan-made youtube stuff doesn't go in such articles anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Save or Expand. I co-wrote Redeath in 1999,2000. No, I do not promote it actively, and yes, people still have a continuing interest in it. I believe Redeath stands up to WP:Notability guidelines in the following ways:
    • Shown at over 50 conventions internationally since 2000 (well before the creation of YouTube) to actual people in actual theater seats. [3][4]
    • Redeath has been screened in the main video room at FanimeCon annually since 2000.
    • Screened at non-animé conventions (e.g. at Penguicon 2005 by Rob Malda of Slashdot).
    • Has at least 1 independent reference. [5]
    • Created an internet meme.[6]
    • The Redeath creators have never posted it to YouTube (fans did even after asked not to).
    • The entry is not self-promotion; the Redeath creators (or anyone related) did not create the entry in wikipedia. (again, fans did and still do edit).
    • If Redeath is not notable, please mark the following for deletion: All_your_base and Rocky_Horror_Picture_Show. Kelvin Nishikawa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.70.174 (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
— 70.143.70.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The two mentioned articles are both very well sourced. Time Magazine and Wired are pretty hard to beat as reliable, independant sourcing. The Evangelion: ReDeath article offers no sourcing independant of the film, let alone sourcing of the caliber of the given articles. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Save . I represent one of the non-anime conventions that screens this parody (CONvergence)
    • Using Youtube to define notability/popularity isn't much of a measure. It's older than YouTube and Andrew actively works to restrict distribution outside the convention convention/festival circuit. The version on YouTube is an old and not indicative of the source material we screen.
    • Youtube was sited several times. I've read several essays about wiki notability and it seems to me the we should judge this based on the notability in the fandom community at large. Not just a subset of the internet.
    • We have been screening it since 2000. It is, and continues to be, one of the most popular items we screen.
    • It is well known in both Anime and Non-Anime Fandom
    • Production values such as editing, and dubbing exceed the customary levels we see with other submissions.
    • My personal opinion is this genre of parody is best viewed in a large group. Similar to Rocky Horror. It's also my opinion that it would be very hard to judge this notability if you're not tied into the large convention/festival community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.28.156 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
— 208.42.28.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
All very interesting. And all pretty much irrelevant to the issue at hand. The article needs to show reliable, independent, and non-trivial references, preferibly multiple of them, to show it's notability. None of the given sources are independant in the slightest, and so they fail right there. Without such sourcing, notability cannot be established. - TexasAndroid 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:N. Doctorfluffy 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Save Seems like this is the same thing as an "official Selection" (non-competing) at a film festival. Official Selection meaning the festival choose to screen the work, as in it appear in the official program. A single screening at Sundance is enough to give any work an entry into the Wikipedia. There are 40+ US based anime conventions that have been deemed of note on the Wikipedia. By that virtue, if sourcing can reflect that this work was official programming at a number of notable conventions I'd be satisfied. I agree with Willbyr that it needs better sourcing, but the delete is heavy handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.147 (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2007 (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.