Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nkwocha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to List_of_Nigerian_films#2011. In view of the apparent sourcing difficulties, this seems to be the result acceptable to most participants. Sandstein 11:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nkwocha[edit]
- Nkwocha (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)
article fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG and does not have any reliable sources. Amsaim (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let us be mindful of the fact that reliable source can be subjective. An example is that I have seen a lot of articles without reference, but yet published, Zack Orji, and so on. Let us use the same standard. I can agree that Nkwocha as a contribution is a stub; needs more info. Am not done yet. On its notabiIity, I am about to add an independent review of it, and the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fechu (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any significant coverage.
Keep in mind that whatever independent review you are going to cite, it needs to be by a nationally-known criticby means of the notability guideline on films. Further, your going to need more than one of those reviews. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- No, and with respects, a review in a reliable source does not "have" to be from a "nationally-known" critic... itself a very subjective term. What IS required is that the source itself be determinable as reliable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but if a review is determined to be reliable, then it should be reasonable to assume that it is from a "nationally-known" critic. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, specially as "nationally known" to Iceland or Paraguay (for example) could still be totally unknown to the rest of the world. As the term is too subjective, its use at WP:NF#Other evidence of notability is not to mandate a "nationally known critic", but to indicate that if a such a critic (no matter his "nation") has taken notice, others may have as well. Further, source "reliability" may be determined through either the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, or the publisher of the work, or a combination. Opinions are not purported to be facts... simply opinions. See WP:RSOPINION. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but if a review is determined to be reliable, then it should be reasonable to assume that it is from a "nationally-known" critic. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if determinable as notable (even if only) to Nigeria. A caveat here is that the Nigerian film industry is one of the more difficult industries to source, specially as most Igbo language films rarely get coverage outside of Nigeria itself. This 2011 film may be seen in two parts on IrokoTV.com and is discussed in Nigerian media of indeterminate reliability. IE: Nollywood Reinvented. Sadly, Wikipedia's coverage of Nigerian film is woefully lacking. However, a Redirect to List of Nigerian films#2011 is a valid consideration, as the thing is sourcable as having received 4 'Nollywood Movie Awards' nominations (no wins)... one for 'Best Movie in an Indigenous Language', one for Queen Nwokoye as 'Best Actress in a Leading Role in an Indigenous Language Movie', and one for Chiwetalu Agu as 'Best Actor in a Leading Role in an Indigenous Language Movie', and one for Junior Pope Odumodoh as'Best Male Actor in a Supporting Role'.[1] [2] [3][4][5], etc. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definitely disappointing that the information about this particular film cannot be presented to the English-language. However, the point of notability, in my opinion, is to establish that an article bigger than a stub can be created and verified through reliable sourcing. The article should also cover all viewpoints to remain neutral. If such sourcing can't be found, the subject just can't be written about confidently. I'll continue to look for more reviews throughout the week, and I support the redirect option. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck. The English Wikipedia is not to be about English-only topics, but is simply an English-language presentation of topics no matter where they originated. And too, stubby articles are acceptable, even if we only have a faint hope that they might be expandable.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definitely disappointing that the information about this particular film cannot be presented to the English-language. However, the point of notability, in my opinion, is to establish that an article bigger than a stub can be created and verified through reliable sourcing. The article should also cover all viewpoints to remain neutral. If such sourcing can't be found, the subject just can't be written about confidently. I'll continue to look for more reviews throughout the week, and I support the redirect option. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by reliable sources. If no reliable source is available, the article cannot remain in Wikipedia. It's that simple. Claiming that "the Nigerian film industry is one of the more difficult industries to source" within an AfD with the motive of keeping an article for which there are no reliable sources, appears to be an attempt trying to introduce a different set of Notability Rules for articles relating to Nigeria. In the last couple of years the amount of available reliable sources on the internet by notable Nigerian news agencies has enormously increased. Every major and minor newspaper and print magazine in Nigeria is placing their articles on their websites. For the major part of notable Nollywood movies there are scores of reliable sources available from Nigerian notable websites. None of the Nigerian film critics and journalists have (yet) written about the film in question, and as such there are no reliable sources available. A redirect to the List of Nigerian Films article can only happen, if the article has reliable sources. Wikipedia's Manual of Style Guideline for Lists stipulates, that "Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say". Since there are no reliable sources available, a redirect of this article does not adhere to Wikipedia's manual of style guideline. Anything else is original research. The notabilty criteria for films are very clear, and this film article does not fulfill any of them.
- Lastly, the list of sources provided by editor Schmidt are all unreliable or primary (with the exception of the Daily Times of Nigeria). Sites like nollywoodreinvented, ghanamma and nairaland (which is an internet forum board) are unreliable, because they do not fulfill the requirements found in WP:RS and WP:SOURCES (e.g. having editorial oversight (=having an editorial board), fact checking etc). Amsaim (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It has widely been accepted that the mere existence of a film can be sourced to the film itself. Notability is a different issue. My "weak keep" included the caveat "if determinable as notable even if only to Nigeria" and acknowledged that a redirect was a viable option that served our readers. If you wish to nominate List of Nigerian films for deletion, a far more insightful discussion could be had there, thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, are you suggesting above that Daily Times of Nigeria, included at List of newspapers in Nigeria and being used above (with yes, the poorer sources) to show this 2011 Nigerian film received award nominations,[6] is not to be considered RS? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. Certainly, the Daily Times of Nigeria is a reliable source. I had already pointed out that Nigerian news agencies (which includes the Daily Times) are reliable sources, yet in the proceeding paragraph I wrongly defined all of your sources are unreliable. Now, concerning the List of Nigerian films, I have no clue why you come up with the idea that I want this List to be deleted? I've not written or suggested anything like that. Plus, in this Afd, as in any other Afd, editors are looking at whether this particular film is or is not notable to merit its own article, or to merit a redirect. Both issues are about notability, and notability is proven by reliable sources. Receiving nominations for an award is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria for films. Amsaim (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up,[7] and I apologize for my inferrence that you felt the List of Nigerian films was improper. Toward this article, a closer will note that my "weak keep" was provisional. The Nollywood Movie Awards are brand new,[8] and although no one has yet written an article on them, more sourcing may yet become available for both topics. The film being discussed here does have at least one reliable source reporting on it as having received nominations, and a redirect is a viable option (offered far above) that I would support if other sources are not forthcoming, and an option that saves the article history for the event that sources come forward and this film topic can be resurrected. Would you support a redirect? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not support a redirect. WP:REDIRECT does not cover the case of redirecting a film article (for which no reliable sources are available) to a List-of article. The article in the Daily Times merely lists the award nominees and winners. It does not report on the film itself. That's not significant coverage required by WP:NFILMS. Keeping or redirecting this article the way it is now (with no reliable sources available) does not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:PRESERVE contains 3 requirements, including Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, which is not available for this film article. Amsaim (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, with respects I must disagree with your contentions. Editing policy gives us ways to preserve appropriate content... and in the list of possible options, specifically states "instead of deleting text, consider... merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". A merge and redirect of this stub to the list article serves the reader and the project specifically in this instance by sending readers to the one place where, even if currently failing WP:NF, we can verify in a reliable source that this film received multiple nominations. And a redirect to a sourced list entry does not violate core policy WP:V, which is met in that a reliable source at the target shares that this Nigerian film exists and has received nominations. Preserving the article's history causes no mainspace issues, and if eventually shown as meeting WP:NF (even if only to Nigeria) , I would be quite happy to later undelete this and add such sources. The redirect would also tend to curtail someone else writing this article anew if unaware of this discussion. Newbs do that... and even some editors with a but more experience. It is not too far-fetched to imagine that someone might find THIS, be interested enough and have access to hardcopy sources unavailable online, and then wish the article refunded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a non-notable entry or a redirect into a Stand-Alone-List does not adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline for Stand-alone lists. Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and content policies. Every entry in a stand-alone list must be notable. If the entry is not notable, it has no place in the stand-alone list. The film in question is not notable, therefore it cannot be added via merge & redirect to a stand-alone list such as List of Nigerian films. The attempt to use WP:PRESERVE to save a non-notable article from deletion by redirecting the article to a stand-alone list, will in the long run result in Wikipedia becoming an indiscriminate list. Amsaim (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Toward a film being included if not yet seen as meriting an indivudual article: " Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". I believe it is reasonable (as explained above) that non-English (Igbo) non-online sources are available for a film receiving multiple nominations. That someone started an article on a multi-nominated film without first procurring the requisite sources showing individual notability is sad, certainly, but is allowed if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. To encourage a more complete future article, redirects are cheap. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding a non-notable entry or a redirect into a Stand-Alone-List does not adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline for Stand-alone lists. Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's notability guidelines and content policies. Every entry in a stand-alone list must be notable. If the entry is not notable, it has no place in the stand-alone list. The film in question is not notable, therefore it cannot be added via merge & redirect to a stand-alone list such as List of Nigerian films. The attempt to use WP:PRESERVE to save a non-notable article from deletion by redirecting the article to a stand-alone list, will in the long run result in Wikipedia becoming an indiscriminate list. Amsaim (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, with respects I must disagree with your contentions. Editing policy gives us ways to preserve appropriate content... and in the list of possible options, specifically states "instead of deleting text, consider... merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". A merge and redirect of this stub to the list article serves the reader and the project specifically in this instance by sending readers to the one place where, even if currently failing WP:NF, we can verify in a reliable source that this film received multiple nominations. And a redirect to a sourced list entry does not violate core policy WP:V, which is met in that a reliable source at the target shares that this Nigerian film exists and has received nominations. Preserving the article's history causes no mainspace issues, and if eventually shown as meeting WP:NF (even if only to Nigeria) , I would be quite happy to later undelete this and add such sources. The redirect would also tend to curtail someone else writing this article anew if unaware of this discussion. Newbs do that... and even some editors with a but more experience. It is not too far-fetched to imagine that someone might find THIS, be interested enough and have access to hardcopy sources unavailable online, and then wish the article refunded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not support a redirect. WP:REDIRECT does not cover the case of redirecting a film article (for which no reliable sources are available) to a List-of article. The article in the Daily Times merely lists the award nominees and winners. It does not report on the film itself. That's not significant coverage required by WP:NFILMS. Keeping or redirecting this article the way it is now (with no reliable sources available) does not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:PRESERVE contains 3 requirements, including Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability, which is not available for this film article. Amsaim (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up,[7] and I apologize for my inferrence that you felt the List of Nigerian films was improper. Toward this article, a closer will note that my "weak keep" was provisional. The Nollywood Movie Awards are brand new,[8] and although no one has yet written an article on them, more sourcing may yet become available for both topics. The film being discussed here does have at least one reliable source reporting on it as having received nominations, and a redirect is a viable option (offered far above) that I would support if other sources are not forthcoming, and an option that saves the article history for the event that sources come forward and this film topic can be resurrected. Would you support a redirect? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. Certainly, the Daily Times of Nigeria is a reliable source. I had already pointed out that Nigerian news agencies (which includes the Daily Times) are reliable sources, yet in the proceeding paragraph I wrongly defined all of your sources are unreliable. Now, concerning the List of Nigerian films, I have no clue why you come up with the idea that I want this List to be deleted? I've not written or suggested anything like that. Plus, in this Afd, as in any other Afd, editors are looking at whether this particular film is or is not notable to merit its own article, or to merit a redirect. Both issues are about notability, and notability is proven by reliable sources. Receiving nominations for an award is not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria for films. Amsaim (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cited provision is about red-linked entries that do not have articles. A redirect is not a red-linked entry. The issue in this Afd is not about a red-linked entry, it is about a film article which fails notability for films. Creating a redirect to a stand-alone list is not permitted by Wikipedia's manual of style for stand-alone lists.
The Nigerian Cinema industry produces thousands of films every year, and the majority of these remain ignored by the bulk of Nigerian film buffs, critics and Nigerian journalists. Even some films from top Nollywood actresses / actors are not given enough journalistic professional attention in the form of a film review. If Nigerian journalists were to write a review for every film released in Nigeria, they'd spend most of their time doing only that. Take for instance the english-language film Baby Police which was released 10 (ten) years ago in 2003. This films starrs Osita Iheme, one of Nollywoods' top actors. After 10 years there are still no reliable sources available for that film. In 2010 the Baby Police article was taken to AfD and subsequently deleted. In April 2012 a new editor re-created the deleted Baby Police article, again without any reliable sources. The igbo-language film Nkwocha was released in Nigeria sometime in 2011. It's now January 2013, and there are still no reliable sources availble for that film to establish notability. It is therefore not reasonable to expect that reliable sources will be available in the near future. A good precedent to support this is the Baby Police film as mentioned above. Amsaim (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your example of an instance where a film starring a Nollywod top artist has gotten no write-ups does seem to underscore the difficulty I wrote of up above in that not all things sourcable have ongoing or online coverage. Again, and in acknowledging that some other film did not, at least Nkwocha is verifiable in a reliable source to have received multiple award nominations. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:32, 24 January 2013 (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.