Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Badger (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 after two relists, leaning keep. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Badger (film)

[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)

Lot of c-list festival participation, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Would have redirected to the director, but his article was deleted last month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazem Mollaie). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep One review in the Austin Chronicle [[1]] Donaldd23 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is mention in Variety (one of the biggest film publications) and several others. It's notable enough. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One review plus mentions is insufficient for retention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability guideline is very specific. A subject must receive sigcov in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Mentions do not count and do not stack. One potential reliable source is not enough to meet the "multiple" requirement. It fails according to WP:N --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone here read or write Farsi? Because this is a Persian language film, I would expect there to be coverage in at least some Persian publications if it managed to get coverage in The Austin Chronicle. Wikipedia has a major problem with deletions of non-English films because no one knows how to find non-English sources for them.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this might help? -2pou (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Search term: گورکن فیلمFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.