Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Deep (1985 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 keep. The consensus is clearly to keep. I will move it to the proper title--I assume the 85 is a typo. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Deep (1985 film)[edit]

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

I found nothing to show that this film passes WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, Looked on Google & only found this & this (Link doesnt work either!. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a 1983 film, not 1985, and IMDB lists Nicole Kidman as being in it. I found this with a quick Google search. I'm sure there's plenty more out there too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicole Kidman being in it does not make the film pass WP:NF, nor does a short paragraph. You also can't be sure that there are plenty more sources out there, considering you only did a quick search. SL93 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty sure if she was in a film today and not 1983, it would be a sure-fire keep. Harder to find online info for a film from the 1980s. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether or not that is the case, there is no good coverage. Nothing can be truly predicted. The article can always be added to her article with a redirect if that is the consensus. I doubt that it would be a sure-fire keep. 1983 was her first year of acting. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, man. The '80s weren't the Dark Ages (maybe for music). Now I just feel old. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Nicole Kidman was in a film today it would probably be a surefire keep, as it would attract lots of attention. This little film has recieved no substantial coverage, and "oh it's from the 80s sources are harder to find" is not a free pass. Beerest355 Talk 18:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially because any 1980s film with any impact does have coverage that can still be found. There is even a category - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1980s_films. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proper film year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt search:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. It hasn't been noticed and isn't inheriting any notability from Kidman. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliably sourced article about Australian TV movie that is significant for its inclusion of several notable actors and creative artists. Kidman's first film role? How exactly would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? Sources from 1980s Australia are more difficult to obtain than current TV movies of this type, but we shouldn't discriminate based on armchair laziness. Manifestly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually her second role. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't see how following notability guidelines is discrimination. I think that it is discrimination to keep some films that do not meet the notability guideline, while deleting others. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the person who originally wrote the article I am biased but I would argue strongly it be kept. It was an Australian TV movie, which personally I think is grounds enough for inclusion - but also it was from a noted director (Mark Joffre) and featured well known Australian actors including Nicole Kidman. It was also culturally important to Australia because it was a rare Australian attempt to make a Dallas-Dynasty type show. Australian films remain unrepresented on wikipedia, an imbalance I am trying to correct.Dutchy85 (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Candleabracadabra. It's pre-internet, so I'm more forgiving regarding the paucity of sources. (And for the record, 1980s music is actually pretty awesome if you're a classical geek. :-))--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, WP:NFILM, appears to be a victim of WP:BIAS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the topic is not as represented as other topics in sources, notability has not been shown. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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.