Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offside (2009 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offside (2009 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)

Hopelessly promotional and deceptively sourced article on a non notable film. So bad that even if it is found to be notable a healthy dose of TNT should be applied. Article has many sources but looking at them I see junk. Let's look at some.

"Woven through all this is the progress[4] of the Socceroos[5] at the 2006 World Cup finals,[6] with the steady success[7][8] of the Australian team generating enthusiasm[9] amongst Australians[10] who traditionally had no interest in soccer,[11] and increasing inspiration for the boys."

An impressive 8 citations backing up one aspect of the plot of the movie! No. 8 sources dumped in that verify Australia's participation in the World Cup, that don't mention the film, that predate the film. Pure padding, puff.

"The end scenes were shot at Joe’s Kiosk, Henley Beach, which has since become a famous meeting place,[36] for South Australian politicians.[37]"

Once again no mention of Offside. Pure padding, puff. How about

"Music by Ikochi, Fighterpilot, Laura Hill,[38] King Daddy, Pornland, Tracer,[39] Fireballs, Matthew Salleh, Maeder, M Williams, Andrew 'Pange' Niemoeller, The Huckleberry Swedes, Sonic Monkey,[40] and The Secret Game.[41]

No. [1] None of those articles mention Offside.
7 diferent articles in FilmInk? No. It's the one PR piece deceptively presented as seven, each time given a fake title. Same with the 7 from db Mag.
What sources actually are about the film. Local interest puff piece from street press. Industry PR. Not good enough.
How about other sources? Imdb links no critic reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has no page for this film. Search found no good coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely lacking notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete. I have eviscerated the page in an attempt to show what I think is legitimate content based on reliable sources. Apologies that the remaining 2 sources, that I have added, are not freely available online, but they are from The Adelaide Advertiser newspaper found via a ProQuest media database search. Both articles are very short but are on point, however I don't think they are probably enough to carry the day on their own. I am inclined to agree with the original proposal's reasoning-- the page was very promotional and in my view did not meet WP:NOTE. Does the page now meet requirements? I don't think so. Delete. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2019 (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.