Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grayson (film)
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 Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grayson (film)[edit]
- Grayson (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable fan-made trailer for a film that doesn't exist; fails WP:MOVIE. Notability is asserted... mention is made of the Universal Stuidos Judges Award 2005, but the source was IMDb trivia and I haven't been able to find anything better. Only one cast member has enough individual notability to justify her own page, and it would be very hard to argue that this represented a significant moment in her career. Similarly, it would be hard to argue that DC pulling fan films of its creations from conventions represented a major landmark in cinematic history; DC are notoriously big on protecting their copyright and I doubt this one film pushed them over the edge. No non-trivial, mainstream coverage, just Internet fan sites. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the film is clearly notable enough for inclusion, and I've edited the article to add more links and references. The 2004 Comic-Con incident actually was a notable event as far as fanfilms/studio relations were concerned, and I've added a reference for that as well. Also, the Entertainment Weekly link is clearly mainstream coverage. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously further references are a help, but whilst the Entertainment Weekly link may represent mainstream coverage (indeed the only link to mainstream coverage in the article) it is still effectively trivial in the absence of any critical appraisal as per WP:MOVIE (I'm unconvinced just giving it A- without justification constitutes critical appraisal). comics2film.com doesn't constitute a reliable source as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary. As it stands, you have asserted that the fanfilms/studio relations issue is notable without justifying it. Strangely, you also asserted that the breakdown in relations with DC was directly related to the World's Finest fanfilm during that article's AfD. They clearly cannot both be true. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both Sandy Collora's World's Finest and Grayson were meant to be shown at Comic-Con in 2004, and were part of the reason DC reacted as it did - also because Collora's earlier film Beatman: Dead End clearly trumped any recent (at that time) legitimate DC/Warner Batman offerings, and these projects were getting a LOT of notice. Comics2Film may not be reliable to you, but as far as comics and the film industry are concerned, it is a reliable source, frequently cited as a source by major news outlets. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What I regard as a reliable source is not important. What is important is what Wikipedia guidelines state is a reliable source. You say they were getting "a LOT of notice"; capslock doesn't constitute verifiability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see where Wikipedia guidelines state that Comics2Film is not a reliable source. Their authors *are* generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, so that's not an issue. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm pretty sure the guideline you're looking for is WP:V, specifically WP:SPS, regarding Comics2Film. You state the authors are regarded as authoratative. I see no evidence for this. Just another fan site. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see where Wikipedia guidelines state that Comics2Film is not a reliable source. Their authors *are* generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, so that's not an issue. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What I regard as a reliable source is not important. What is important is what Wikipedia guidelines state is a reliable source. You say they were getting "a LOT of notice"; capslock doesn't constitute verifiability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both Sandy Collora's World's Finest and Grayson were meant to be shown at Comic-Con in 2004, and were part of the reason DC reacted as it did - also because Collora's earlier film Beatman: Dead End clearly trumped any recent (at that time) legitimate DC/Warner Batman offerings, and these projects were getting a LOT of notice. Comics2Film may not be reliable to you, but as far as comics and the film industry are concerned, it is a reliable source, frequently cited as a source by major news outlets. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously further references are a help, but whilst the Entertainment Weekly link may represent mainstream coverage (indeed the only link to mainstream coverage in the article) it is still effectively trivial in the absence of any critical appraisal as per WP:MOVIE (I'm unconvinced just giving it A- without justification constitutes critical appraisal). comics2film.com doesn't constitute a reliable source as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary. As it stands, you have asserted that the fanfilms/studio relations issue is notable without justifying it. Strangely, you also asserted that the breakdown in relations with DC was directly related to the World's Finest fanfilm during that article's AfD. They clearly cannot both be true. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the film is notable enough for inclusion. And since Blackmetalbaz seems determined to dismiss a reference as "just another fan site", let me say that a few minutes with Google show that Fox News, Gawker Media's io9.com, the SciFi Channel's SciFi Wire, Eflux Media, Comic Book Resources (an industry news site where the C2F site began), The Calgary Sun, The Seattle Times and USA Today[1] [2] [3] seem to have no problem recognizing Comics2Film as a reputable source. I also found paid news links to sites like Variety and the LA Times. An according to this release by another site, Comics2Film is the "premiere site for the relationship of comics to film". Hardly a self-published fan site, as I hope you can see from the evidence I've shown. I also see no problem with the other sources currently in use, as they're all reputable in their fields. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, fair enough, it seems that a lot of mainstream news outlets use Comics2film for quotes and the like, if not as a reliable source for factual information. But now there's another problem... the Comic-Con section on the page was a potential claim of notability (if DC stepped in and stopped fan films being showed specifically because of Grayson). However, Grayson isn't even mentioned in the link provided. Notability for the film has still not been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this article should be kept. I was looking for information regarding Fiorella and his next movies. My view is that he is a no longer considered just a fan acting as a director for his movie but a real director with a read idea for a film that made an impact enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.23.181.218 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Animated News, Entertainment Weekly, New York press, Super Hero Hype, Elle and more sources are quoting, discussing and taking this "fan film" quite seriously. And, I really believe we can do that fine. If people need more RS in the article, then call for a cleanup, not deletion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (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.