Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghosts of Our Forest

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Our Forest[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)

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that there is not much content in the article, but may I ask why the two reviews already present are being discounted? Library Journal is a respected review periodical, and being discussed in an academic journal Ethnomusicology seems to convey considerable notability on its own. I lean keep so far, but I'm interested to see a response. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @2pou: These sources did not come up when I searched before nominating the article. I am glad they have been discovered in the mean time. BOVINEBOY2008 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. Should've looked closer at the history. -2pou (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the academic coverage of the film identified above in the Ethnomusicology journal which is significant coverage and the Library Journal although that is lesser coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the additions post-nomination are good enough to meet the WP:NFO requirements in my opinion. Thanks going out to ReaderofthePack. -2pou (talk) 20:46, 14 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.