Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone with the Wind (2005 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 delete. No prejudice against recreation should proper sourcing be located. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gone with the Wind (2005 film)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability criterion. There is scant coverage of this film in reliable sources, although being an Afghan film this should not be an immediate argument for its dismissal. However, it fails WP:NFO in other ways:

No evidence of wide distribution
No reviews are included in the article which would help establish the esteem it is held in
No evidence of awards

In short there is no evidence of its importance. The two sources in the article are dead and the film is not even listed on the director's bio at IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1680298/reference Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have fixed the 2 references in the article but they are only brief directory listings, might need to search in Pashto and Dari for refs , definitely needs Afghan editors input Atlantic306 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No good content, any results would be overrun with the 1939 version in sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2017 (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.