Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertrand (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. Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand (film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, have been unable to find significant coverage outside the smh review included in the article (it is included in IMDB here), for example, a search under various permutations at the NFSA site (such as "Romilly Cavan") and the ABC (like this) brings up nothing, would suggest that a mention at the writer's wikiarticle is probably enough but unfortunately Romilly Cavan does not have a lesson (although she may be notable?). Also, there is no mention at Ken Hannam, the director's article. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still thinking about this one and still looking. I did find this which gives some reasonable content: "TELEVISION AND RADIO TODAY". The Canberra Times. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 27 May 1964. p. 33. Retrieved 10 January 2020 – via Trove.. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too heavily based on IMDb to show notability. GNG requires multiple reliable sources which we clearly do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this. There is one good source in the article, but making a film notable just because it exists requires more than just one source — and as I don't have any viable access to databases of Australian media coverage from the 1960s, I cannot speak to whether any other coverage exists to salvage it with. But we don't keep inadequately sourced articles about films that haven't been properly shown to clear WP:NFILM just because we assume that better notability-building sources might exist — we keep such articles only if better notability-building sources are shown to exist. So if somebody with better access than I've got to Australian newspaper archives can find sufficient sourcing, that would change things — but until that happens, one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the one I found above. But that would make only two reasonable references. So, I still think not quite enough yet. (Re Aussie newspapers. You should be able to access TROVE - which for Aussie content should be a critical part of BEFORE). Aoziwe (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aoziwe: May I ask why you think it's still not enough, given that that's exactly what WP:GNG requires? Modernponderer (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just conservative I suppose. While I do like to keep articles, or at least content, if at all possible, I just like to feel comfortable that they will not come back again and again, which some seem to. (Sorry was working on the post below before I saw your post here.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry, it is getting late here so I might have missed it, but where exactly does it say "two"? Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Aoziwe: The GNG requires "multiple" sources, i.e. at least two. More is better, of course. Modernponderer (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But I like to hang on by more than my finger nails. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two independent reliable sources with significant coverage is the WP:GNG standard, and with the new citation posted above it is now met. Modernponderer (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep Now that we have two relatively solid independent sources, and they are on-line, for something that pre-dates the WWW by decades is an indicator of sufficient notability to my mind. I would be much happier if we could find a third one. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A third reference just added to the article. Boneymau (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Boneymau: Did you mean to add a different reference? Because the one you added is the second one that was already posted here... Modernponderer (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that they were the same until you pointed it out. Apologies, only two references at this point. Boneymau (talk) 21:33, 25 January 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.