Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer (2019 Nigerian 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (2019 Nigerian film)[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:NF. Little to no prose. No primary sources. Not notable. Tree Critter (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub. It received some awards in its home country. It may not be an internationally recognized film, but if it has local awards, there are indications of national notability. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above it received some awards in its home country. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per WP:NFO. The film received a notable award BON. Insight 3 (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of prose (WP:STUBS are okay) and no primary sources are not reasons to delete. What matters is what sources WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the fundemental criteria - WP:NFP and WP:NFSOURCES. No independent reliable sources, neither here or on the web. Award citations also only have passing mentions, "[Category] - Lucifer". Beside, the award was NOT for the film itself (or any "aspect of filmmaking" per WP:NFO#3), its two wins are for acting. Do you create an article for "Best Kiss in a Movie" winner too? If BON award alone is your criteria for inclusion, then all films that has won a BON award can be created even if they fail WP:GNG. Additionally, the #3 of WP:NFO states (in the note): This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. Here, #1 is not satisfied. It also says: In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. For this film, a "search for independent, third-party reliable sources is unsuccessful", also meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film (wins are not for the film). --2409:4073:4E1A:23FC:3000:F0F5:8034:A441 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When stating For this film, a "search for independent, third-party reliable sources is unsuccessful", are you able to confirm this dearth of sources in the Yoruba language of the film? I agree with some points, but this is a very strong claim. One could reasonably assume that buzz developed around said performances in discussions of the film prior to the award nominations being made. Foreign content is always tricky, and I have no !vote right now since it is hard to confirm one way or the other. -2pou (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask why "acting" is not part of "filmmaking"? Actors don't act on their own, they are directed to act in a certain way according to a specific script. Insight 3 (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Search for sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's been a stub for a while, the film came out in 2019, I'd expect sources to be found by now. Leaning non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 10 September 2022 (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.