Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessons in Dissent

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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons in Dissent[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)

A few ~~local~~ media companies mentioned this film when it came out in 2014 and then nothing subsequent. Seems a complete failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs show articles about the film in The Hollywood Reporter, South China Morning Post and The Economist. And I can't see what this has to do with recentism; if anything it seems the opposite of recentism. Station1 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three refs on the year of release is a failure of WP:10YT - you will note I mentioned that and not WP:RECENTISM in the AfD description. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also note that WP:10YT is not the guideline but just supplements. The movie has RS to support GNG, has movie review by newspaper, etc. Instead , i can't assume good faith on people (more than one editor) keep nominating pro-democracy (so called anti-China if they think anti-CCP is anti-China) related articles for Afd. Matthew hk (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a wild failure of WP:AGF and I'd appreciate it if you would strike through the inaccurate assertions regarding my motivation in nomming a minor documentary film with no evidence of sustained relevance for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion rationale cited is not Wikipedia policy, but just an explanatory supplement. DonaldD23 talk to me 08:22, 9 December 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.