Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cysgod Rhyfel

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. Significant reliable sources coverage found. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cysgod Rhyfel

[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)

Non-notable television film that has not received significant coverage from independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as it fails WP:NF. All I could find for this film were tv listings and a single press release. Although Western Mail (Wales) is reliable, it is not enough on its own. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has been the subject of multiple articles in the Daily Post (the main English language newspaper publication in Wales) in addition to the coverage already in the article:

"Ex-troop makes moving film". Daily Post. May 10, 2014.

"Owain opens his heart on family taboo: Mental health issues under the spotlight". Daily Post. May 10, 2014.

"Living with war's dark memories: Conflict casts a shadow on former soldiers' lives". Daily Post. May 17, 2014.

Further, there were several Welsh language publications about the film and doctoral dissertations in Welsh citing or examining the film in my university's library. It appears to have significance in academia in Wales in psychology, mental health, and cinema studies. It's important to remember when we are dealing with foreign language films that the national audience of the criteria for WP:NFILM is a different nation/people group than the English speaking world. Altogether, it's enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and criteria 1 and 5 of WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @4meter4:, could you post some links to theses sources? I have been trying to verify them and haven't been able to locate them. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't. The University of Oklahoma library doesn't allow transference of the material outside of the university database to non faculty or non-students. I can download PDFs of files, but I am not sure the legality of uploading those here. They are available in ProQuest if you have subscription access. 4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the additional sources listed by 4meter4. Not sure about NFILM 5, but with ProQuest access I was able to verify the sources from Daily Post, and adding that to Western Mail I believe the film passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2021 (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.