Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persona (2008 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persona (2008 film)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM. From IMDB, the movie was reviewed by only one critic, and that's a blog. It's possible it was reviewed more widely in Japan, but honestly it just seems to be a non-notable minor movie. Wieno (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless someone can find Japanese reviews, it looks to fail WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I managed to find the Japanese name and I found this review and interview. It seems straightforward with Google Translate, but I don't know if this counts as a RS or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked it to Japanese Wikipedia but the article there is also stubby and lacks any reliable secondary sources. I honestly have no way of telling whether the articles you've linked to are good enough. Wieno (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:CSB and seek assistance from Project Japanese cinema. Looking at translations found through use of the Wayback Machine [1] and then Google translate, it appears that this film and its coverage meets WP:NF. We can let it be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the total absence of in-depth coverage or reviews (both on this article and on the Japanese Wikipedia version), it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria at WP:MOVIE are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Eiga Geijutsu interview is an RS (it's one of the major film magazines), and it's likely their print edition had a review. A search of the Oya Soichi Bunko (good for mass market magazines) comes up with reviews or articles in Shukan Bunshun (2008/2/14), FLASH (2008/2/12), Scola (Feb 2008), Saizo (Feb 2008), CD Data (2008/11/20), etc. There are likely more. Kinenote does not mention a KineJun review, but it looks like it got sufficient, though not extensive coverage in the mass market press. There are also a few other pieces on the net, most focusing on the lead actress, but definitely selling the movie: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Several of these are major sites. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Michitaro (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough sources have been suggested that I've struck my vote on the assumption that notability has become too questionable for me to properly judge without better knowledge of the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2014 (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.