Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pharmacist (2010 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. Enigma^msg 20:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharmacist (2010 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a film that has no strong claim of notability per WP:NFILM. There are statements here that would count as valid notability claims if the article could be reliably sourced properly, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt it from having to have real reliable source coverage in media -- but six of the seven references here are primary sources such as IMDb and its own press kit, which cannot support notability at all, and the only one that actually represents media coverage is a mere 163-word blurb in a local newspaper in the filmmaker's own hometown media, and even that is more about two of the actors in the film than it is about the film per se. And on a ProQuest search, I can find nothing that constitutes more substantive coverage about the film, or even verifies the accuracy of its notability claims at all. This is simply not good enough to deem a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film comes no where near meeting notability criteria. To be fair, this could be said of lots of the articles we have on films, which too often use unacknowledged quotes from promotional literature for the films, often perpetuating problematic use of language, such as refering to women in their 20s as "girls".John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is misleading, since the word "girl" or "girls" does not appear in this article at all, as far as I can tell. If other articles have that problem, that should be addressed by editing those articles, on their talk pages, or in deletion discussions for them, but this article does not need to be accused of "problematic" (sexist) language which it does not have. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award winning independent film. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy, could you prove that using RS? Which award(s) did it win? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Edmonton Film Festival and Nevada Film Festival are reliable sources for who won awards and are already cited.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself nominally verifies the accuracy of the statement, it does not assist in making the statement an article-clinching notability claim if it's the only sourcing that can be provided. The extent to which an award win counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media outlets do or don't independently devote their editorial resources to reporting the granting of that award as news — an award does not count as a notability claim in its own right if it can be referenced only to the award's self-published web presence, because media coverage about the award win is non-existent. If an award's own self-published content about itself were all it took to make an award an article-clinching notability claim, we'd have to keep an article about every teenager who ever won a high school poetry contest or employee of the month at Arby's — so we don't confer notability because awards until the media pay attention to the granting of that award as a thing they assign their staff journalists to produce and publish content about. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per FloridaArmy, above. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing opinion to Delete after going over the context one more time, following the input by K.e.coffman. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Bearcat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to prove notability, nothing cited for the award claim. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Promo 'cruft. The article on the director has been recently deleted, so it's possible that this page is part of the same walled garden. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability as evidenced by sources cited, including IMDb. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Septrillion (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2018 (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.