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. SNOW Keep: no sense in leaving something opened for an article that has been significantly improved, clear demonstrations of notability and the nominator clearly meant to be disruptive
Sadads (
talk)
03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This film, released in 1987, has no critic's reviews or user reviews listed in the Internet Movie Database, and it hasn't even received the 5 ratings from users which would be needed to calculate an average rating. I don't know how it could qualify as
notable. --
Metropolitan90(talk)05:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Article does need improvement, but we judge notability based on the
existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — and the existing fr: article does have suitable, notability-bolstering sources in it that we can simply copy over. A film's notability does not depend on whether its critical or media attention has been indexed by IMDb or not — sure, that can be a valid place to check, but it's not the only place we need to check: the absence of such links in that source is not in and of itself a notability-breaker if other sources can be found elsewhere. And neither user reviews nor user ratings are relevant at all, either, given that we don't reference Wikipedia content to
user-generated sourcing. Better sources are available here, it's just necessary to look at more than just IMDb to find them. I've been improving the referencing significantly; the trick, as I just learned, is that at the time the sources were spelling the filmmaker's name as "Bachar Chbib" instead of "Bashar Shbib" — once I found that out and made the necessary search term adjustment, the film's sourceability literally exploded.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as has been improved with the addition of reliably sourced content from The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and other Canadian reliable sources so passes
WP:GNG, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:25, 16 February 2020 (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.
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. SNOW Keep: no sense in leaving something opened for an article that has been significantly improved, clear demonstrations of notability and the nominator clearly meant to be disruptive
Sadads (
talk)
03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. This film, released in 1987, has no critic's reviews or user reviews listed in the Internet Movie Database, and it hasn't even received the 5 ratings from users which would be needed to calculate an average rating. I don't know how it could qualify as
notable. --
Metropolitan90(talk)05:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Article does need improvement, but we judge notability based on the
existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — and the existing fr: article does have suitable, notability-bolstering sources in it that we can simply copy over. A film's notability does not depend on whether its critical or media attention has been indexed by IMDb or not — sure, that can be a valid place to check, but it's not the only place we need to check: the absence of such links in that source is not in and of itself a notability-breaker if other sources can be found elsewhere. And neither user reviews nor user ratings are relevant at all, either, given that we don't reference Wikipedia content to
user-generated sourcing. Better sources are available here, it's just necessary to look at more than just IMDb to find them. I've been improving the referencing significantly; the trick, as I just learned, is that at the time the sources were spelling the filmmaker's name as "Bachar Chbib" instead of "Bashar Shbib" — once I found that out and made the necessary search term adjustment, the film's sourceability literally exploded.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as has been improved with the addition of reliably sourced content from The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and other Canadian reliable sources so passes
WP:GNG, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:25, 16 February 2020 (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.