Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(This discussion is) Off the Record


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(This discussion is) Off the Record

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded)  Just ' i ' yaya  13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC) All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet,  and Netherlands.  Just ' i ' yaya  13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:
 * 1)  in Cultuurpeers
 * 2)  (Fotodok)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.
 * The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source.  Just ' i ' yaya  04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Zero coverage for this film project. The Fr wiki article is tagged for notability and it relies on mostly primary sources, so not really meeting requirements there either. I can't see anything that is in a RS; the blurb above is a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not independently notable. gidonb (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.