Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Change of Our Lives

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. ✗plicit 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Our Lives[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)

Fails WP:NFILM. No coverage in google news and books or Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, the sources cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Redtree21 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I can't actually see the items in the Fairfield Advance or South West Advertiser, the titles sound like the articles are discussed in detail in reliable sources. I think this passes. Toughpigs (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources show SIGCOV through the impact the film has had on the awareness of Hepatitis B. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this has received enough critical attention to warrant an individual page. Possibly could merge/redirect as a compromise?-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KH-1, you have to specify a target article if you are arguing that this article should be Redirected or Merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Tran.-KH-1 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no established practice, that I am aware of, of redirecting film articles to an actor. Personally, I think there is a better argument for keeping rather than redirecting. I do not think this is a good target. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Borderline decision here. If I were deciding whether to create this article, I'd probably resolve not to do so. The coverage is there, but I absolutely believe there is a plausible case for arguing this film is not quite notable enough. However, the article has been created. With what little coverage is available, a relatively complete article has been established, and I believe there is sufficient sourcing to avoid verification issues. Given that this film is only 11 years old, I'd generally expect to see more coverage. However, there is not a total absence of coverage. The film was picked up by the Daily Telegraph and a few local papers. It's weak coverage, but I still think there is a plausible conclusion to be drawn: the coverage is significant enough to warrant a vote for keeping rather than deleting. Considering the totality of circumstances, I believe the grounds for keeping the article slightly outweigh the grounds for deleting it. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The Tele is redlisted as an unreliable source; however applying common sense, it seems fine to use it to substantiate notability for a film as it is still an enormous publication and significant news source.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 27 March 2024 (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.