Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anesa hanafy

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The result was nomination withdrawn due to an editor's meritorious service in content and referencing salvage. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anesa hanafy[edit]

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

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

Nominally an article about a film, what this does as written is to start with a single statement asserting that the film exists, followed by a "cinematographer's perspective" shot list of every individual scene in the film, often carrying original research interpretations of the scene's meaning — and then climaxing with a summary of the overall "main points of the movie". This is much more of a POV essay than an encyclopedia article. Delete unless it can be comprehensively rewritten as a neutral and properly sourced article about the film (I'd have speedied it if I could squeeze it into any of the known speedy criteria, it's that bad.) Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sound, rewritten article wouldn't be bad, but it appears that Anesa hanafy is one of the 80-odd filmes by Egyptian comedian Ismail Yassine, shot in 1954, when Egyptian film production was high quantity (Yassine seems to have shot 14 films that year). Unless this was a specifically important hit of his career and is credited as such in secondary sources, no use to keep it. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyacadiz: An actor or industry being prolific is not a deletion criteria. Notability for film (even 60-year-old Egyptian film) is through coverage and we have plenty of secondary sources. Please revisit the now improved article. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyacadiz: Was quite easy to determine Miss Hanafi as listed among the most important 100 films in the history of Egyptian cinema.[1] In his book Dream Makers on the Nile, author Mustafa Darwish called it Ismail Yasseen's "most famous and funniest film".[2] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the original article's format and sourcing issues, this film topic easily meets WP:NF and many attributes of WP:OEN. We can always encourage further improvements, as Mada Masr calls it one of Egypt's cinematic gems that had no equal until 1987. I personally took the painful mess brought to AFD, trimmed away stuff per MOS:FILM and did some expansion and sourcing. Sheesh... there were plenty of book sources treating the film both substantively and significantly, and being originally poorly written by a noob was a reason to correct, not delete this topic. It could use more work, sure... but deletion? No. It's a keeper. Bearcat? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said right up front that it could be kept if it were repaired. Which you've done, so thanks — this will now be withdrawn. But your comment seems to be based on the mistaken premise that if this got deleted in its original form, then no new replacement article about it could ever be created — and thus we'd have to keep it in its original form, no matter how shitty that was, just because it might get someday replaced with a better article. But that's not how things work on here: we have a principle called WP:NUKEANDPAVE, by which an article as irredeemable as the original version of this was can get thrown in the trash can without prejudice against the future recreation of a good article about the same topic. Yes, you did good by salvaging this as a keepable article — but my flagging the original form of this article as not up to a keepable standard was not an error on my part. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (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.