Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klay World: Off the Table

Add links
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. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klay World: Off the Table

[edit]
Klay World: Off the Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Take note of the deletion logs. I am pretty sure there are others, I'll add them if I find them, most have been deleted more than once. Benfer has edited as User:Stillz1, 100% of whose edits were to add articles on Benfer or links to Benfer and his websites to other articles. Most have by now been deleted. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Benfer is a Newgrounds flash artist and claymation filmmaker. He also seemingly has the most vocal on-wiki internet fanclub, having been himself and his related projects being deleted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Indeed, if you click through to those links, you'll probably find even more deletions. If you look on Talk:Knox, you'll find an unrelated user supporting the inclusion of Robert "Knox" Benfer into the list just to stop edit wars and vandalism. This article refers to Benfer's latest project, his first full length claymation, made and distributed by himself. This is not a notable release, there are no third party sources, it fails WP:NF (film notability guidelines). - hahnchen 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. IrishGuy talk 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the first criteria of the film notability guidelines for having been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the film and its creators/producers" ([1] [2]). Besides that, the film is notable for being affiliated with Newgrounds (being the first feature to have the Newgrounds logo on it). I contest your hypothesis that Benfer's popularity is limited to Wikipedia users or is stronger on Wikipedia than elsewhere on the internet. WP:DP says this: "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article" The admin who deleted his entry and prevented its recreation last October (see page logs) based his judgement on this deletion vote in February 2005. A review of his notability since that time has not been undertaken. According to WP:BIO, "a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" and "Name recognition" may be signs of notability. It would seem to me that he satisfies those criteria: his website is the #1 result when you search for "knox" on Google ("knox" is a common word which is used in many other contexts), he's the 6th-most bookmarked artist on Newgrounds (a website with over 1 million members), his website has been visited over 14 million times and his films on Newgrounds had been viewed 10,959,036 times as of Oct. 12, 2006. Also, this very film that we're discussing now sold 2000 copies in its first month despite being sold only online through his website (according to the Film Threat article). Since the film is a continuation of the "Klay World" series that have been so popular on Newgrounds, I would argue that it is notable. Esn 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Filmthreat article is alright actually, I didn't spot it before. I did a google before nominating and saw the ArticlesBase one too. But the ArticlesBase article isn't a reliable source, anyone can submit articles there. It's pretty much an SEO magnet for backlinks. Newgrounds rankings are useless, you'll see that Legendary Frog has been deleted multiple times. Whereas Xiao Xiao has had a court case victory against Nike, and Alien Hominid has had various professional reviews and published by a third party, Knox, hasn't. - hahnchen 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that generally Film Threat shouldn't be considered a reliable source. It's basically a fanzine, with articles and content from unpaid volunteer writers. They're not at all discriminant as far as what they cover: to directly quote their site: "Send your film to us, and we'll review it. That simple." I used to love their print version when it existed and I admire their anything-goes attitude, but they're far away from being a reliable source for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original nom. As of yet, there doesn't seem to be multiple, non-trivial discussion. (ArticlesBase is insufficient, per hanch.) Bucketsofg 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usual. I am getting a bit fed up with Benfer's tiny fanbase making Wikipedia articles on their hero. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a small note - some of the points I made above seem to suggest that his fanbase isn't exactly small. But anyway, I'm not really willing to fight this one - let it be as editors decide. There's a high likelyhood that the Benfer article will have to be unprotected eventually, anyway, so there's no rush. I'm not actually a fan of his (I realize this may be difficult to believe) - but I think that judging by his popularity, there is enough demand among readers to warrant a few wikipedia articles about him or his films. Esn 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh God, make it stop. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Delete, since it still doesn't appear to meet sourcing/notability guidelines. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fan-cruft, created by Benfer's small but rabid fanbase. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's see, we are offered the site (not independent), IMDB (enough said, enough times), articlesbase ("Submitting articles has become one of the most popular means of generating quality backlinks and targeted traffic to your website. Join us today - It's Free!"), and filmthreat ("Send your film to us, and we'll review it. That simple."). So we have nothing here to evidence notability. GRBerry 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the established and longstanding precedent that Benfer himself isn't notable, which thus extends to his creations as well. I'm on the verge of calling for a speedy on this as re-creation, but I guess it can't hurt to be thorough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 2 February 2007 (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/Klay_World:_Off_the_Table&oldid=1137973707"