Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Shadows (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Shadows (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)

Notability. Stub. Promotional. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional of what, exactly? WenaRamiro (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Promotional of what" - SEO effort to promote non-notable documentary using Wikipedia. Prior to this edit, it had a direct quote from the film's website in the first line of the lead. Editorial tone was also problematic . Acousmana (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how redacting an article of a news-worthy topic in a "problematic" sense makes the article non-notable. WenaRamiro (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in an agreement with WenaRamiro. Acousmana, please analyze it in regards of how it fails WP:GNG or WP:NFO. As I see it the subject of this article might be able to pass WP:GNG... Kolma8 (talk)

per WP:GNG, re:"significant coverage", OK best reference used is NY Times and that's only a passing mention, after that Salon and Daily Beast as about equal in terms of WP:RS, the rest, especially 'Small Screen', are low quality and should be dumped. Trivial mentions in weak sources like Daily Kos and Pique do nothing for notability. If the subject is as notable as claimed, there should be more high quality sources provided.Acousmana (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found those four that are worth mentioning: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. All of them might be "significant", but none are "reliable" IMO. Kolma8 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, routine GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and per all of the above Donaldd23 (talk) 15:56, 29 January 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.