Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Troopers: Deadlock

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 delete. Arguments to keep are not based in policy; it's quite likely that other fan films require deletion also, but that's not relevant here, see WP:OSE Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the further procedure here? I guess, if there are upcoming arguments for notability they can be stated here? Or is it a deletion for ever? And please remove the other fan film articles too. The Wikipedia rule are not good understandable and not really transparent, but if we have even countless other examples, which strikes these rules it is just confusing, right? But Wikipedia should stay understandable as its own goal as always stated in public. Please improve this vision, at the moment is has not this view in public. Take it just as an review contribution. Thank you. Stw 001 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers: Deadlock[edit]

Starship Troopers: Deadlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. All awards appear to be minor DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be a non-notable fan film, without any actual coverage or reviews in reliable sources. Its only claim to notability is winning minor awards at largely non-notable film festivals. As this is just a fan film and has no notability, it should definitely not be merged or added to the main article on the Starship Troopers film franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote some reviews are yet pending. Also further Film Festival contributions are pending. And finally to produce this movie, members of the former film crew of the original movie from 1997 contributed here. Therefore I think it is notable, because it is simply part of the Starship Troopers universe. It is not just a fan film, it is a further development of the story, it fills the gap between SST3 and the animated SST films. Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it - the sniper bug made by the original contributor and art designer of Starship Troopers - Jim Martin. Another contributor was Rock Galotti, the former armorer of SST, the maker of the 'Morita'. On YouTube there is also an interview with Rock. Yo can also take a look onto the movies website starship-troopers.net for more background information.
    Please support this project! Stw 001 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, we developed even an own new bug for it
    Are you saying here that you were involved in the production of this film? If that's the case, it seems like you have a conflict of interest which you haven't disclosed while creating this article.
    Outside of that, whether reviews are pending or not, if proper sources don't exist yet then the article doesn't pass the requirements for notability. It could be that it's just too soon for this article to exist. OliveYouBean (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point here to the 'Inclusionary criteria' of the WP:NFILM. I think some attributes have this quality, it is for sure very unique, not even repeating something existing before, but rather a further development within a given universe. Please think about this argumentation. Stw 001 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to review the movie, please use the following link: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPuPnnzKbHo - it is just private listed due to the pending Film Festival contributions. The premiere of the movie was last year in Munich (Germany) in cinema. Since then we offered the viewing on YouTube for all SST fan for free. The movie was made without any budget, which is also notable I think. Stw 001 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "we offered"? This is clearly a conflict of interest. It does not appear that that was disclosed when you created the article. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am not sure if I understand your right? Why it is a conflict to provide a movie to watch for free? So maybe it is the wrong wording, but how to express it? It is just open and non-commercial, so why exactly that should be a problem or conflict? I want to underline, that there is no need to make advertisement for it due to it is non-profit and open for all. I think that is rather good, than bad, isn't it? So then please delete that I said "we offered", we did not offer anything. It is just available and that's it. Stw 001 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're quite understanding what DonaldD23 is saying. On Wikipedia, a conflict of interest means that you're writing about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." If you were involved in the creation of this film (which seems to be true from how you keep using "we" in this discussion), then that's a conflict of interest. OliveYouBean (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you very much for this explanation. I understand it clearly now. Of course I don't want to raise such a conflict of interest. However, it is not a profit-driven interest, it is just the willing to help the SST topic in summary. It would not help me in a private way, I could not get any personal advantage from it, it is neither my job nor my profession. To solve this problem I want to ask you guys if somebody of you could take over the further contribution and advocacy for this article? In the name of the "Starship Troopers universe" I think it would be worth to spend some effort here. Of course I state it from point of view of a fan of "Starship Troopers" itself. I cannot expect, that you (all) share the same interest. However, it would be a kind support to all SST fans worldwide in my opinion. Due to the fact that Starship Troopers compared e.g. to StarWars is rather a nice. Therefore this article would simply helpful for people, who is searching for information about this topic in glance. Could you please help to fight for this article? Don't beat me for raising it. I will then sign off. However, if you need a discussion partner - then I am standby for you. Thank you Gentlemen. Stw 001 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The movie is produced in two spoken languages - English and German. The movie has 5 subtitle languages: German, English, Polish, French, Spain. Made according to the Netflix specification for subtitles. The crew was about hundred people spread worldwide. The production time was five years.
    I could also ask Casper van Dien for support, if that can be helpful? Stw 001 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stw 001: Notability on Wikipedia is determined by what unrelated sources have to say about them, since there really aren't any talking about this film it probably doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. This doesn't mean that the film isn't unique or notable in a way, just that it doesn't meet the criteria for the type of films with dedicated entries on Wikipedia. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, it would appear that the "German Short Film Festival" that gave this film an award is not the same Berlin Short Film Festival that we actually have an article on. That one is an annual festival in Berlin, that you can see from the official site, does not mention this film. It appears that this film actually was awarded the Berlin Shorts Award, which describes itself as a monthly, online contest. Rorshacma (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good idea maybe. please do it. see my comment above - I sign off here, not to raise a conflict of interest. This article is looking for a guy who can take over to fight for it. Maybe even you could take over? I stay ready in case of needed discussions, but I want not force anything. As I said, I am on the way for the topic in glance, but not for any private advantage. It is an 'open project', everybody can contribute and it would help all fans of it. Thank you again, for your good proposal - Good bye. Stw 001 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Because I pointed to "Starwars" compared to "Starship Troopers", please take a look to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fan_films_based_on_Star_Wars. Please review each of these articles. And then tell me why we should no keep the article about the Starship Troopers fan film? For Starwars there are at least 42 fan films! I think alone for this fact the article is "notable", because it is the one and only Starship Troopers fan film worldwide. At least according Wikipedia. Thoughts about that? Stw 001 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. That is not a valid keep argument. It would be helpful if you reviewed the relevant guidelines going forward. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stw 001: If you look at some of the pages in that category and see what kinds of sources they use, it might be a good litmus test for what this page will need. It's very possible that the fan film might become notable in the future as people notice and write about it, which would make this WP:TOOSOON. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that are my thoughts too. I wrote it already here somewhere, there is yet something ongoing. Within next months there will be more results I have heard already. Lets stay patient. Thank you for supporting this idea. Stw 001 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2023 (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.