Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Stranger in Paradise


 * 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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A Stranger in Paradise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject film doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. The article was added in 2013 by an account apparently created solely for that purpose and which is, by and large, the page's primary editor. No significant edits since shortly after the page was created aside from routine tagging and housekeeping. The article itself seems to be a near verbatim copy/paste of a BroadwayWorld press release.  B.Rossow ·  talk  18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The film has received reviews and coverage from publications including Los Angeles Times, The Dissolve , Variety , TimeOut Dubai , BroadwayWorld , and LA Weekly . I believe that this passes WP:GNG. MarkZusab (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:, with much respect, there appears to be more required to establish notability of a film than simply mentions in articles. Only two of those sources (LA Times and The Dissolve) are actual reviews written after the film's release, and they both shredded the film (not that a poor review affects notability, granted). The others, published before its release, are minor announcements about casting (e.g. Variety), regurgitated press releases (e.g. BroadwayWorld), a three-sentence synopsis (TimeOut Dubai) and so on. The majority of the articles suggested don't appear to constitute coverage except insofar as to say that the film exists. Then there's the apparent WP:COPYVIO. Not arguing at all; simply providing a bit more info about the sources you suggested.  B.Rossow ·  talk  13:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep due to meeting WP:GNG as pointed out by . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To expand on my argument, Los Angeles Times, The Dissolve, and LA Weekly are all appropriate reliable sources. There also appears to be a review from Fort Worth Star-Telegram that is simply not available online. It does not matter at all if the reviews are negative, and it is a waste of text to point this out, even as one acknowledges that it does not even matter. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this non-notable film. Having reviews doesn’t make a film notable. Trillfendi (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely false. Reviews are reliable sources that are independent of the subject that provide not just significant coverage, but coverage that directly addresses the subject. See WP:GNG. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG with significant coverage including four full independent reviews in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. That the reviews are critical is a good indication of independent analysis Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: as noted above, the sources cited meet WP:NFILM. Alarichall (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (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.