Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les larmes de l’émigration

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. Dammit Angrysockhop. You just broke my "no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator" streak :( Still the consensus here is that the depth of coverage is sufficient. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les larmes de l’émigration[edit]

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

non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in sources like FIFF.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has plot synopsis in sources like FIFF. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how exactly then do you mean delete??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis from the two sites is identical. Either they are user submitted, or they are copying from each other. In either case, it is not really "coverage". This critique applies to pretty much all of the articles using the same database sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like La Robe du temps you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that la robe is notable. A single counter example clearly passing notability is even more to the point showing that there is such a thing as a notable aftican movie, and the other articles, mass created do not meet those criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single counter example you say?. Really? Are you certain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Keep Well covered! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple, easily found sources.[1] We do not punish an author by mass nominations of arguably notable film topics. We instead involve in discussions that seek improvements of such over time and through regular editing so as to improve Wikipedia's coverage of these non-English films. What is this... the 12th such nomination? We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, specially when we have so many other ways to improve the project.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 might seem like a lot...Until compared the the several hundred articles that were created. Consider this a sample, to determine if the films in general are notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As they get researched and expanded it turns out that most of the films in this AfD set are clearly notable. Presumably the FCAT organizers are somewhat selective in the films they choose to screen. A few may not be notable. I have doubts about On-Yaramá, which perhaps could be redirected to Grupo Yaramá. If anyone wants to review the much larger set of film stubs of which this is a sample, this exercise has confirmed that the correct approach would be to research each one, add sourced material where found, nominate for AfD only when not enough can be found to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article a little with a news ref. The film seems to have been screened rather widely in Europe, at festivals and by such bodies as the Cité nationale de l'histoire de l'immigration in Paris. I think this one does pass WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and can be improved further. Also User:M.casanova has created around 100 articles till now have all been mostly good. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as the rest. First Light (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My issue with the article was based on depth of coverage- I found many sources that seemed to give trivial acknowledgement to the film, but none offering more substantial coverage. That said, I have only the most rudimentary understanding of french, so some of the suggested sources I can't accurately assess. If someone more competent in french can confirm that there are, in fact, reliable french language sources that give a more substantial depth of coverage than the sources provided, add them, and consider my !vote keep. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 14 March 2012 (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.