Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady of Heaven

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 per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 01:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady of Heaven[edit]

[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)

The Lady of Heaven does not satisfy film notability or general notability. This is an unreleased film. According to the guidelines on future films, unreleased films are only notable if production has itself been notable to satisfy general notability. Nothing in this article even starts to discuss significant coverage of production by reliable sources, likely because there has not been significant coverage of production by reliable sources. An article should speak for itself, and this draft does not.

This article is promotional, and reads like an advertisement for the film, which is unreleased, and a release date is not given. This article is incomplete, in that portions of the article are empty sections.

This article has already been moved to draft space once, and has been declined by Articles for Creation reviewers. Its principal author has been blocked for promotion. Another editor has moved the article back to article space without passing review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - heavily promotional article. I would have said draftify, but WP:TNT is apropos in this instance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete, Many Muslims do not consider it correct to show the face of the Prophet Muhammad. But the film did it with all the opposition. This film is very important for Muslims because they want to see how it did it. In addition, the film shows one of the most controversial and important differences between Shiites and Sunnis. Other films have not dared to do so and have not even mentioned it. It is clear that this film is very important and should not be deleted.Just see the film has not been released yet, have how much video in Persian and Arabic language in cyberspace and see how the unreleased film quickly has Persian (Iran, the first Shiite country) and Arabic (Saudi Arabia, the first Sunni country) article in wikipedia. It is very important among Muslims and it is a universal film.
Comment: It looks like this and this are the same source, a press release sent to news outlets. For newbies, press releases are seen as primary sources because they were written by someone(s) - often press teams - that were hired by the people working on the film. I'll take a look at the other sources to see if they're the same. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's the rundown of sourcing:

Deadline. This is OK to establish notability. It won't be enough on its own, however.
Cinando. Routine database listing, cannot establish notability.
Waring and McKenna. Another routine database listing, can't establish notability.
1TV. Establishes filming has begun, OK for NFF purposes.
Report News Agency. Press release.
InfoRustavi. This is the same article as above but in Georgian, so it's a press release.
AlHabib. This is the website of Yasser Al-Habib. This is a bit iffy as far as sourcing goes, it's possibly usable but not the strongest possible source since it's posted on his own website, making it a SPS.
Film Daily. Another press release - it's identical to what is written here in another website. Can't establish notability.
The Vore. Routine database listing
Digital Journal. Press release.
Swagger. Not usable. Per their contact page they publish sponsored posts. This also seems like a press release. You can find some of the same text in places like this, making it very, very likely that this is either a sponsored post, based very heavily on a press release, or both.
Latestly. Press release
Zee5. Press release.
Deadline. Usable.
Hannibal Pictures. Primary source.
Hawzah News. Not sure about the source, but would likely be usable at the very least for the info about the reaction to the movie.

What I'm running into here is that there aren't a lot of sources about the film that aren't out and out press releases or otherwise unusable. As it stands, the entire article will need to be re-written because it's extremely non-neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Weak keep ~~agree with Onel5969. Too soon probably for the film, but now with this type of editing too late to save. TNT.~~ Kolma8 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep per ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) effort to overhaul the article. So, I guess HEY. If the result is to keep please consider semi-protect per ROP-FTG79. ReaderofthePack --> Thanks. Kolma8 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do whatever you see fit! Write it again! no problem. You are right, but do not delete the article, which is very important.

not delete How come "don't berate 2 " or "a quiet place 2" has articles, but this movie must have not? What is more important in "dont breath 2" than this article? Just said the release date? Well, the release date of this movie has not been said yet! And is waiting to be released.cause of Corona. This is not the reason

keep there is a lot of source about this film and This film banned in PakistanReza Amper (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To give this a bit of a fair shake I'm going to try to create a version that lacks all of the promotional puffery and spam links. Right now the article is so promotionally written that, quite frankly, this could be speedy deleted as sheer unambiguous promotional material. I'd also like to add that arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not help argue for this article to be retained, as the existence of other articles doesn't mean that this film passes NFF at this point in time. Right now there might be enough for a weak keep, but I'd have to pretty much remove all of the promotional content, which makes up 95% of what is currently there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969, Kolma8, and Robert McClenon: I did a major overhaul of the article. I think it's pretty borderline. What bothers me as far as proving NFF goes is that the largest bulk of the sourcing is primary, as it's based on press releases from the same general time period. Some of the sourcing in the initial version was also kind of misleading, as the sources were PR that were written about (in the article) as if it was an original news piece and not a PR reprint. If this does happen to be kept, I would argue for this to get a temporary semi-protection to help deter any addition of promotional puffery. I'm honestly on the fence. I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but I think that notability is very borderline. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added quite a bit about the criticism of the film by notable figures. It's not super solid, but it's enough that if this film were to never release, it would probably be enough to establish notability for a "never released" film as opposed to a "unreleased future" film. I think it passes NFF, but I would absolutely recommend semi-protection to prevent the puffery from blowing up again. I also have no problem with the article history getting removed as well, if someone thinks that would help prevent this. I do have a copy of the draft in my userspace just in case as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the time and effort. Kolma8 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I have to admit my first impulse was to just delete it given its state at time of nomination, as the cleanup really did require an entire re-write. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If folks can give the article a look again after User:ReaderofthePack's work, I'd appreciate it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2021 (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.