Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventuress Wanted (film)

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. —fetch ·comms 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adventuress Wanted (film)

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

Gulture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2009 documentary film. Little evidence of notability. Has been shown at some film festivals. DVD not yet released. Doesn't appear to have any reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY - This being the English Wikipedia and all I have this curious notion we should be looking for notability in English language sources. The article has two sources in what look to me to be Swedish newspapers but despite the fact that the film itself is in English (and a very enjoyable film it is too) I could find nothing in English language sources except blogs and such. I therefore suggest it is not yet sufficiently notable to be included. Cottonshirt τ 18:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English sources are the preferred, but non-English sources are acceptable if their English equivalents are not available. A simple lack of English sources is not automatically indicative of non-notability. As the film is written and directed by the same fellow who founded the Bandit Rock radio station in Sweden, it is not at all surprising that there are Swedish sources even in the lack of English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A link to a newspaper in a language you can neither read nor understand is not a source, it is an appeal to the integrity of the Wikipedian who posted it. So whilst it sounds hugely democratic and inclusive to say that foreign language sources are acceptable, it is actually an admission that sources are not relevant, do not have to support the claims they are provided to support and can in fact be ignored for all practical purposes because it doesn't matter whether readers can even understand them.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. Please explain why I am wrong. Cottonshirt τ 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in being Devil's Advocate. Check WP:NONENG. Yes, English sources are the preferred, but not the only language that can establish notability. If non-English sources are used, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors... and you can ask the author to provide such. That you or I might not be able to read the source in its original language, does not mean it cannot be used as a source, and that a source is not in English does in no way infer that the source is not relevent. Point of fact, we have many notable foreign films shared here on en.Wikipedia... films that have large amounts of non-English sources and ver few English ones. Being in other languages does not denigrate the source, nor the topic. There is an entire project Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias dedicated to addressing such tasks. I'm not saying this film here is notable or not, as I have not requested translated of the Swedish sources. What I am saying is that non-English sources might eventually establish it as notable, and a verified notability in Sweden would be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I am not Swedish not am I event remotely familiar with the Swedish language, but that does not stop me from checking the non-English sources already in the article via machine translation (I chose Google translate) to confirm that the articles are about this film. Ideally more sources would be good but what is already there is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] source is a tabloid and more about Thomas McAlevey and barely mentions the film (according to machine translation). It is a brief four-question yes-no interview. This [2] is slightly more detailed but talks more about the creator and trip than the film. Is it even much of a reliable source? The third is a blog and can be discounted. The article itself contains puffery in an attempt to mask notability: "The Swedish press closely followed their trip to its conclusion", "a successful Western businessman" etc. Because this is an English-language film, you would expect a "notable" film to have sources in this language but it barely does. Seems to me the only reason the creator got the coverage he did was because he was an American living in Sweden - and they considered this to be a curiousity (and weird combination of X and Y not= notability). Basically it is miles away from meeting the criteria at WP:NFILM: no reviews from nationally known critics, no major awards etc. I also think this is a promotional piece with possible COI issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respects to our Devil's Advocate, being a "Tabloid" is not the negative often implied by usage of the term, as due to publication costs, many respected news sources use that smaller reporting format. One might more resonably infer that Swedish press interest in the individual and his project stems less from him being simply being an "American", and more from his having been the individual who founded the successful Bandit Rock radio station in Stockholm, Sweden, thus making him a "successful Western" businessman" in Stockholm. However, any seeming appearance of fluff and hyperbole can either be sourced to be shown as factual, or modified for tone through regular editing... which as an adressable concern does not require a flat deletion. And also of note, the subordinant criteria at WP:NF are set to be supportive to considerations for inclusion, and not intended to be exclusionary... as an assertion of winning an award is intended to encourage editors to find sources toward the article topic... and not winning does not autmatically equate to non-notable. Many films find a home in Wikipedia despite never having never won an award... and many do not find a home despite having won many. Another point to address is attention of Swedish press to a Swedish film being in English (much a second-language in non-English Western nations). A lack of English-language reviews for a new film that has not (as yet) screened in any English-language country is also not a negative. One looks first to the country where it DID screen, no matter the language of the film or of the country. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.