- 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. albeit weakly Star Mississippi 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Children of Jerusalem
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Children of Jerusalem ( | 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)
Article about a film series, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- they must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics.
But the only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the article is so poorly formatted that four of the seven films in the series only have an "empty section" tag and another one consists only of an offsite link to the studio's own website, and other than one piece of "where are the kids now?" in a newspaper two decades after the end of the series (which isn't enough coverage all by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to IMDb and the studio rather than third-party coverage in GNG-worthy sources -- and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, all I'm getting is event calendar listings and accidental text matches for unrelated topics.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- A possible contemporary ref from CM: Canadian Review of Materials? [1] - I am not sure where that stands regarding WP:RS Artw ( talk) 15:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Found a short NYTimes review in a round up article, together with the Forward piece I believe that it just scrapes by. Artw ( talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Borderline, but I think it just passes by GNG. One long paragraph is needed to meet GNG, and The NY Times coverage is an RS and just long enough. The Forward is, per WP, a progressive socialist newspaper, but I feel it's definitely an RS for films, and the coverage is very extensive! So there are two RS that are significant and indepedent, so GNG is met, albeit barely. VickKiang ( talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep per above Andrevan @ 21:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. albeit weakly Star Mississippi 01:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Children of Jerusalem
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Children of Jerusalem ( | 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)
Article about a film series, not
properly referenced as passing
WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- they must show some reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as notable film awards and/or critical analysis by professional film critics.
But the only notability claim on offer here is that it exists, the article is so poorly formatted that four of the seven films in the series only have an "empty section" tag and another one consists only of an offsite link to the studio's own website, and other than one piece of "where are the kids now?" in a newspaper two decades after the end of the series (which isn't enough coverage all by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to IMDb and the studio rather than third-party coverage in GNG-worthy sources -- and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, all I'm getting is event calendar listings and accidental text matches for unrelated topics.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have a lot more than just one hit of media coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 16:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- A possible contemporary ref from CM: Canadian Review of Materials? [1] - I am not sure where that stands regarding WP:RS Artw ( talk) 15:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Found a short NYTimes review in a round up article, together with the Forward piece I believe that it just scrapes by. Artw ( talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Borderline, but I think it just passes by GNG. One long paragraph is needed to meet GNG, and The NY Times coverage is an RS and just long enough. The Forward is, per WP, a progressive socialist newspaper, but I feel it's definitely an RS for films, and the coverage is very extensive! So there are two RS that are significant and indepedent, so GNG is met, albeit barely. VickKiang ( talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep per above Andrevan @ 21:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.