Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Fowl The Movie

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 redirect to Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl The Movie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor User:96.49.23.5, who offered no rationale. On the merits, I see an article started in 2010 that, at one point, read thus: "We are a group of artists, and voice actors, and animators that are creating a full color 2d animated movie, based on the book Artemis Fowl." The project is listed variously as a studio film, a fan film, and something in-between. The author also notes (correctly, I imagine) that the group does not even have the rights to the property. There are no sources available in any format that I can access, nor is there evidence of media coverage in print or elsewhere that might not be available online. In short, I do not see the case for notability here. Per WP:USUAL, if such a film came into being and was covered in reliable sources, and then was released in such a manner as to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFILM, you might have a case for an article. But, at present, there is nothing here to suggest that the project meets our guidelines for notability, either for films or in general. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has made the case and I concur. Reading the article makes it clear that this topic isn't notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non existent unsourced unlicensed project. Information about bona fide professional efforts to develop the film rights for Artemis Fowl is already located at Artemis Fowl (series)#Film adaptation; Google and GNews show a few sources for those development activities (which have nothing to do with the ones described in the article we're discussing here) but not enough to support a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. Fan movies are almost never notable. Rare exceptions do come about every now and then, but this is not one of those exceptions. What little I can find about a film adaptation tends to talk about the official versions. I've found nothing to suggest that this fan adaptation is or will be notable. If/when it actually gets made and gains coverage, I have no problem with it being recreated. I just recommend that when that point comes, the original creators seek assistance from someone in WP:FILM to show them what constitutes a reliable source. To be completely honest, I rather doubt that this will get made. There are a lot of red flags here, such as the team refusing to give their names, using the Wikipedia page at one point to beg for donations, and the team assuming that all they have to do for rights is to e-mail the author. Those don't automatically mean that the film can't become notable or get created, but as someone who has watched many such fan movies get proposed, then crash and burn, it's a pretty good sign that this will never get made. However since this is a rather generic title, we can use this as a redirect to the actual mainstream film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect, as it is a reasonable search term for whatever official adaptation comes along. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and so vague that is essentially not sourceable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (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.