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 keep. (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt For Gollum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    The Hunt For Gollum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE guidelines; as this is an unofficial, undistributed fan film it would have to be etremely notable to be given an article here, and I see no evidence of this.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any dissenting voices on this one? Open to discussion if there are.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked this question 2 hours and 24 minutes after nominating it, and after two other people had commented. In a discussion meant to last 7 days (or 5 days, I can never remember which). I found that surprising. Maybe wait a bit longer next time before asking if there are any dissenting voices? Anyway, my views: from what I can see, this fan film might not meet a specific notability guideline (SNG, here WP:MOVIE) but might well meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Sometimes SNGs do a poor job on picking up on other coverage a topic may have received. I commented to this effect in a recent AfD discussion that involved the WP:MILHIST notability guidelines. I'm also looking at the references that were present when you nominated the article for deletion. That is not a badly-done article, so clearly the text can be retained somewhere, even if not under this title, as the information is verifiable and informative for people reading about this topic, even if the topic itself might be better summarised elsewhere (such as in an overview article on Tolkien fandom and other responses to Tolkien - the main articles for that are Tolkien fandom, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien). There are some individual articles like this one that may be borderline, such as Born of Hope and Fellowship!, but The Hunt for Gollum clearly made much more impact than those two. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this article would be interesting and informative for a Lord of the Rings fan or researcher. Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could be re-categorized. Perhaps incorporated within the Middle Earth Portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Middle-earth) in the category Middle Earth Adaptations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Middle-earth_adaptations).Psteichen (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's all please AGF and not accuse anyone of deliberately ignoring news coverage or failing to do research before a nom. Coverage alone does not normally establish notability for a film unless it is widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally known critics. But if the consensus on this one is keep, then we keep. That's what discussion is for.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it is any topic that might be sourced as notable through worldwide coverage in WP:reliable sources, film or not. The caveats at WP:NF, begin with the Wikipedia:NF#General principles stating "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline"... which the topic most definitely does. The "indicative attributes" which you are quoting in good faith as if they were somehow mandates, are offered only to alert and encourage editors to circumstances that might be indicative of the wisdom of an expanded search for sources. Quite specifically, the preamble to that list states "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" As has already been demonstrated, numerous reliable sources exist that meet WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 1 February 2010 (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.
    More