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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I had considered another relisting but with a reasonable level of participation and opinions all over the place on this, I see little hope for a sudden burst of agreement. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Redemption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines nor film-specific notability guidelines. Google News hits indicated by previous objectors to deletion are passing mentions, and do not discuss the film in depth. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: completing IP request per WT:AfD message, rationale copied from article talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering. this mentions it, and any number of obituaries of the one actor from Star Wars who appeared in the film give a brief mention it, but I've seen nothing indicating any deep commentary. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it helps, I did a custom search of the google news archives of dates prior to his passing and found two articles which mention The Dark Redemption briefly. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly, then, the coverage this film has enjoyed has predominently been due to the notability of one of its actors (possibly two, if I undersatnd it?); even so, this clearly lacks the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage that demonstrates notability, or the stand-alone reliable sources. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm finding that this is repeatedly mentioned in academic books as an example of SW fan films, so I think that at the very least it should be mentioned somewhere if it can't have its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there somewhere it could be mentioned? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as academic book sources support a small stub Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Barely.

Juddery, Mark (1 May 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Canberra Times

Solid in depth article about the film.

Casamento, Jo; Ewen, Amy (14 July 1999), "Labour Of Love For "Star Wars"", Daily Telegraph

article on films issues with Lucasfilms

In addition there is more weak sources such as

"Mel's brother stars", Sunday Herald Sun, 25 April 1999

Mel Gibsons brother is making his acting debut.

Just enough to sqeeze into GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases are you using to find these citations? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Granted I am a little bias since I don't think any fan made video, film or self published book should have a Wikipedia page in the first place, but the fact is, it only has three references. And one of those is from an obscure book of essays (citation #2). It's just not notable enoughGiantdevilfish (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2017 (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.