Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandido (2004 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 keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bandido (2004 film)[edit]

Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. Article is a one line stub that appears to have been created purely to justify the creator's creation of a template of the director. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the contribution history. This article and the others which appear in the same template were all nominated for deletion at the same time - within a minute. There's an uncivil comment about the template, then a rapid-fire series of prods. Then, soon after, a rapid-fire series of AFDs. Every one of these AFDs is crashing and burning so it's a clear case of disruption due to a lack of due diligence. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep Admittedly Bad Article but there are CLEARLY enough reliable sources to warrant an article even if, in its current state the article is only one sentance long. Maybe you should try to google the movie name before you bring up WP:N? When you nominate an article for deletion based on Notability you don't judge notability based on the state of the article but on the available material covering the subject of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the reliable sources are? Google a film name does not establish notability. Please point to these reliable sources before claiming an article is notable (particularly when you are making the same statement in multiple AfDs). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:N for films states that only two full length reviews from a nationally recognized source are required. You can find both here [1]. Do some of your own research before you make obviously bullshit notability claims. It's pretty obvious that you have some sort of agenda here trying to delete all of these film articles. I agree they're short and provide little to no information but last I checked that wasn't a criteria for deletion. How about you take the time you spend trying to make bad faith deletion postings and redirect it towards adding a paragraph of meaningful information to these articles. Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why don't you go read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before attacking folks for no valid reason. I do not have some sort of "agenda". One editor made a huge glut of single sentence articles for films most of which were not notable. FYI, the Variety review is not a "full length" review. Two of the others don't exist anymore. So we now have ONE full length review. And just two reviews alone does not mean instant notability. It says having two full reviews "generally indicate[s], when supported with reliable sources..." which we now have one RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination contrary to WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Film was reviewed in Variety [2]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. That is not a full-length review. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant; a short review does not equal "trviial coverage", and the venue (Variety) certainly confers notability -- there are plenty of films that never rate a Variety review at all, long or short. No one is going to argue that this is one of the most important films of the last fifty years, or even of the year it was released in, but Wikipedian notability has clearly been established.

It's also, in MHO, quite bad form for the nominator to revert other editors' attempts to flesh out an article while the AfD is underway, especially considering that a number of people have been disturbed about the quality of the nomination - if the adds are as bad as you make them out to be, other editors will certainly remove them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep of a film by an academy award winning director which has critical review in numerous reliable sources. Variety, Sun Sentinel, Los Angeles Times, Variety, El Universal, etc. While not understanding the nominator's current stub hunt, sending them to AFD and making them someone else's problem is a bit Pointy. WP:ATD or WP:BEFORE anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NF - needs two FULL-length reviews. Neither of the two reliable ones there are full length, only brief ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. As long as the coverage is not trivial, the coverage may act toward notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is trivial. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You you are incorrect. The coverage may not be in-depth, but it is not a trival mention. Close this please and stop the pointy nominations. FORCING others to the work you might have is much more disruptive than helpful. You are better than that. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found more reviews, interviews, wrote at least a stubworthy article and provided the sources and wikilinked some of the notable stars. There's a hell of a lot more info to expand the article in the last reference if anyone cares to do so. Nefariousski (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? The one you added to the article is clearly not a reliable source, nor is IMDB which you added to the article. Also, please review WP:MOSFILM - listing the MPAA and runtime in the article is unnecessary and the former is inappropriate as it reflects systemic bias. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like this AfD nom has Snowball's chance in hell. How about we work on expanding the articles instead? Nefariousski (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above rationales (Nefariousski and Schmidt). --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep -Obviously notable. Sour attitude by the nominator in regards to the creator. Worse still is the stubborness to even want to discuss it rationally before sending a tirade of article to AFD. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable reviews found. Dream Focus 13:04, 5 February 2010 (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.