Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Secret (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The result was withdrawn. Out of courtesy to the nominator, I will close this early, if that's what's desired. The nominator's wishes should be respected. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Little Secret (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL, as the film is as yet unreleased, and additionally fails WP:NFILM for lack of coverage. Submission to a category for consideration for the Oscars in 2017 is not anywhere close to either winning or nomination, and is the only thing being covered about this film. MSJapan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- MSJapan , why did you nominate this for AfD only 40 minutes of article creation? [1]--Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Film projects are typically deleted if they're in the development stage and there is only speculation of future production, not already-shot upcoming films simply because they haven't been released yet. (I dare the nom to AfD Rogue One as it is also "is as yet unreleased.") WP:CRYSTAL is for unverifiable speculation of topics, not verified topics such as this. Not surprisingly it took less than three seconds to find in-depth coverage of this film, no less verification. [2][3][4][5] As it takes at least a couple of minutes to set up an AfD, it seems WP:BEFORE was not adhered to. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly looked, and I even looked in the Portuguese media. All of that was more or less is "it was submitted to the Oscars." A lot of that material you've found, by the way, isn't about the film, but the story behind it, which was also a book, so the validity as film coverage is debatable. The second Variety article is also a press release. So is one in-depth article going to be sufficient? I'd also point out that the only substantial source, an interview with the director of a film about his own sister based on a book by his other sister, isn't particularly "independent of the subject." I nominated this for AfD because the editor created his account, added stuff to the list articles, and then created an article simply to support that (incorrect) addition. This is not Rogue One and has nowhere near the pre-release coverage of Rogue One. Don't try to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument out here. and just to put the nail in it, the same editor took the theatrical poster off IMDB and tried to upload it to Commons on a CC-BY-SA-4 license. So yeah, there's no AGF here. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you actually did followed WP:BEFORE, why did you claim "lack of coverage" and that the Oscar submission " is the only thing being covered about this film"? I'm not buying that BEFORE was followed. Just by you're incorrect analysis of the sources provided, you're admitting your entire deletion rationale was incorrect. Variety pieces of course have coverage about the development of the film and it being based on the book. That's coverage and that's why Variety, a film and televsion trade publication, covered it. And what's with this contention about the 2nd Variety article and the Chief International Correspondent John Hoperwell writing a press release? Do you have any actual evidence of this or have you just committed a WP:BLP violation of reporter John Hoperwell? And for the article that includes an interview, once again a nom attempts to save a losing AfD by claiming an interview is not "coverage." Interviews are coverage per WP:GNG. The publishers (sources) who decided to conduct the interviews are independent of the subjects. It's only claims by the interviewees that have to be considered not independent, not the independent publishers. If you have any evidence that Variety, Stuff.co.nz and Grupo Record (R7) are not independent of this article topic, we'll talk. Your'e wrong on every level with this one. Why are you still keeping this AfD going? --Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC
- I certainly looked, and I even looked in the Portuguese media. All of that was more or less is "it was submitted to the Oscars." A lot of that material you've found, by the way, isn't about the film, but the story behind it, which was also a book, so the validity as film coverage is debatable. The second Variety article is also a press release. So is one in-depth article going to be sufficient? I'd also point out that the only substantial source, an interview with the director of a film about his own sister based on a book by his other sister, isn't particularly "independent of the subject." I nominated this for AfD because the editor created his account, added stuff to the list articles, and then created an article simply to support that (incorrect) addition. This is not Rogue One and has nowhere near the pre-release coverage of Rogue One. Don't try to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument out here. and just to put the nail in it, the same editor took the theatrical poster off IMDB and tried to upload it to Commons on a CC-BY-SA-4 license. So yeah, there's no AGF here. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I just don't see the point of deleting it. It hasn't been released yet but even now, this and this to me to be solid English-language sources, and then there's all the Portuguese language coverage of the film being Brazil's foreign-language Oscar submission, which, whether it gets a nomination or not, is generating significant coverage. So we already have what I would consider to be bare minimum for GNG, and again, the film's not yet released. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, so what if s/he tried to upload the poster to the Commons incorrectly? It's not like the editor misrepresented it as his or her own. For newbies our image licensing rules can be confusing. It's going to be removed. It's no reason necessarily to abandon AGF, or WP:BITE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - since apparently we keep any old garbage someone creates to support vague assertions when nominations for awards never count. Apparently ENN is false these days, and existence is notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Cute and unnecessary use of WP:THROW. It's been quickly proven there is no garbage here (it will likely expand into a quality article after release) and WP:GNG was the deciding factor here, not WP:ENN. You made a mistake and that's it. Like we all do, learn and move on. --Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, meets GNG and notability for films. It was the Brazilian government's selection for the Foreign Language Oscar. κατάσταση 22:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The nominator's 'withdrawal' is such an aggressive slag at disagreeing editors, at a failing Afd, and such a misrepresentation of what editors have been saying that I for one won't do a non-admin close. Let it fester.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)- Keep There is this Variety article for starters, per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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.