Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love (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) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Love (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)

Advertorialized article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- we look for markers of a film's significance, such as notable film awards or attention from established film critics in media, not just technical verification of the film's existence. But right across the board, the review pullquotes here are all from unreliable and non-notability-making blogs rather than real media outlets, and I can't find any evidence whatsoever of coverage in stronger sources. In addition, it warrants note that the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the film's director, thus indicating a clear conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:, as per nomination, apparently a WP:COI with the film director authoring the article. First two references are good reviews. Fourth reference is a dead link. Fifth reference is a good review, sixth is a dead link, defaults to a short review on archive.org. Seventh is broken, eighth is a 404. While the pull quotes are intriuging, and the good reviews inspiring I can't see this passing WP:FILM. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My BEFORE failed to find any review or analysis in a reliable source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 5 September 2020 (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.