Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man: Lotus

Add links
Source: 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 clear, and policy-compliant arguments have been made with respect to the sufficiency of sources, even if some of these sources are not in the article. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: Lotus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Spider-Man: Lotus (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)

Non-notable fan film that immediately fails

a draft page (created two years ago) that was previously rejected at AfC by Dan arndt on the grounds of NFILM. (Note that Superman: Solar, another fan film closely related to this one, shouldn't have an article either.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with your statement. First of all, when I created the page, I wasn't aware that there was ever a draft on the same topic and simply wrote it because I felt it was notable enough to have its own page. Do you need to be reminded of
    WP:AFG?
    This article is one of the most notable fan films of the twenty first century. It is currently sitting at 1,258 for most popular movies on IMDb. Are you advocating for all fan films to be removed from Wikipedia?
    The film has been noticed by numerous news outlets and isn't even comparable to Superman: Solar in media coverage; a quick Google search will show you that.
    I vote Keep. SaltieChips (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    — Note to closing admin:
    AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It may have been "noticed" by sources, but those are all unreliable or low-caliber sources that cover every viral phenomenon, every controversy, every meme, every rumor that pops up on the Internet. While such sources may be appropriate to be used as citations, they are typically unacceptable to demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nominator, but I don't necessarily agree with all of the nominator's points. Although comparing articles in this instance is irrelevant, it would be topical to bring up Prelude to Axanar, a Star Trek film that does establish what a fan film article should look like—if only because Paramount sued its filmmaker. I will change my vote if there is stronger coverage beyond perennial hype articles from marginally reliable sources, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a more reliable source to emerge. Spider-Man in film may be a good merge target. The article being a rejected draft is irrelevant; sourcing has increased since then. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per significant news coverage. —theMainLogan (t•c) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC): If the Rachel, Glenn Quagmire, Dream, two spundtracks from Bluey, Listenbourg, PewDiePie, r/wallstreetbets, and Among Us are notable enough to warrant their own articles, so is this film. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that, my friend, is textbook
    WP:OSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Textbook what? —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need clarification on what
    WP:OSE means, or ...? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Honestly, it would be nice. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of
    WP:OSE: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. In other words, "this other article exists and this is as notable as that" is generally not viewed as a valid argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I already struck it. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's also worth noting that the page you're referring to is an essay with suggestions, not a page on the rules of this wiki. And I already voted to keep the page—I've already stated my opinion. Isn't that what matters? —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Above points explain why to keep it, the film definitely surpasses notability requirements, you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about itwhen the news first dropped that the creators were racist you couldn't escape people talking about the film for a whole week. There have been many news articles about the film. The nominator is acting like fan films have never had wikipedia pages before, even though they most certainly have, and this one has an especially high budget. The draft was denied before the movie came out and was not a complete page, back then it was unclear if the film would even be released due to the controversy, but now we're at a point where the film has been released. Apart from being a film, the discourse around Lotus is an important contemporary example of racism in the film community and how the internet at large addressed it. With even more revelations coming up recently in regards to the film's troublesome development, it'd be the completely wrong move to delete it. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on deletion, but it's a bit baffling to say that you'd have to be "living under a rock" to not be familiar with the "Spider-Man: Lotus" fan film. To the contrary, I would imagine only the strongest superhero / internet gossip fans likely have any prior knowledge of this film at all (and even that's a stretch). A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am living under a rock if I hadn't heard of one of the tens of thousands of YouTube videos with a million views; for the record, I found this page through The Verge. Speaking to your arguments themselves: reliable, secondary sources establish notability. This article has neither, regardless of its "high budget". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after reading through the arguments both for and against and re-looking at the sources provided I consider that it fails
    WP:NFILM, in that it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
All of those sources are low-caliber or potentially unreliable, unsuitable to gauge notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the Independent is low-caliber or unreliable how? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both
Indy100 says, "Because indy100 is from The Independent you can still trust us to take our facts very seriously (even the funny ones). Some of the stories will have been inspired by the brilliant work in The Independent. Most will be from the crack team of indy100 journalists."

The scholar Lawrence Saez wrote in The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An Emerging Collaboration Architecture, a 2012 book published by Routledge in 2012 said "one of India's most respected newspapers, the Hindustan Times".

The other sources are reliable too (some are generally reliable while others are marginally reliable). But I am not discussing them because these two sources provide significant coverage of the film and are sufficient by themselves to allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Keep BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs), you commented above with the statement about The Independent but would you provide more information in your retention rationale? If you do not provide a more detailed reasoning (such as why you think the sources allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline), your comment may be given less weight by the closing admin. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus." Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh, not sure why the rest disappeared. I'd blame the computer but really I suspect I did something wrong.
      The Independent and Hindustan Times are both reliable sources, and I'd even argue Screen Rant and The Daily Dot are for the matter of a fan film based on a comic, especially as both sites are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and have no Sun/Mail/Fox News cloud over their reliability as best as I can see.
      Furthermore the curt, seemingly-inaccurate dismissal of those sources and the research out-of-hand by the nominator is high-handed to say the least.
      This suggests that on this particular topic their mind is made up (if that is not the case I apologise, but based on the information present that is my impression), so it's partly a procedural keep because Wikipedians shouldn't speak to Wikipedians like that, and invoking a bullshit policy like OtherStuffExists is never a good sign either. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the detailed rationale and for clarifying that the rest of your initial comment had disappeared! Cunard (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        "bullshit policy" 😂 —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic, per
    WP:N. The "world at large" has looked at this topic with sufficiently significant attention. "Significant" is when the coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, and that is happening here. To consider it another way, a topic could be considered significant even if it was not the central focus of a coverage piece -- it just has to be direct and in detail enough. Reliable sources making this film the central focus are highly significant. I am okay with cleaning out sources not considered reliable, but I think that still leaves reliable sources covering the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG with its sources.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To everyone who claims the article meets GNG and NFILM based on its present list of sources, I must say I'm very confused here. Below are the sources that are currently on the article:
In sum, 8 of the sources are primary sources, 4 of them are unreliable, 12 are marginally reliable (there are 5 CBR articles), and none are high-quality sources. How does that satisfy GNG and NFILM? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the additional sources found by @Cunard including The Independent and Hindustan Times. I don't think anyone's said the article is beyond improvement but there's a clear demonstration sources exist and deletion isn't warranted. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can pick and choose if a reliable source "don't count" because some people deem them "'marginally' reliable".★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is draftifying the article not a viable solution to allow editors time to reconstruct the article with adequate sourcing? A draft existed before, and it's not like it would be completely undoing all the contributions put in thus far. A debate can be had on the current article's sourcing and what can be done to expand it to what meets standards, although I think that can be done once the prospect of deletion is out of the way and constructive expansion in draftspace is being worked on. I did realize that there is a bullet list section at Spider-Man in other media#Fan films which is where some information can be covered in the mainspace while the article gets a rework in draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In practise draftifying 99% of the time is just delayed deletion, I'm not a fan of it personally.★Trekker (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think virtually everyone agrees that CBR and Screen Rant are much less highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times. As I wrote above, while it's totally fine to use these sources as citations, they shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability, as they post about everything they deem newsworthy/clickbait-y. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true they aren't as highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter I'd also argue that The Hollywood Reporter also isn't anywhere near as highly regarded as The New York Times, that does not make the other sources worthless, and I do think at the very least CBR can be used to establish notability. A wesbite trying to stay alive and putting out a lot of content doesn't mean its content is worthless. "Good enough to use because its reliable, but not good enough to show notability" seems like a terrible road to go down.★Trekker (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. SaltieChips (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard Elttaruuu (talk) 02:54, 20 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spider-Man:_Lotus&oldid=1171558298"