Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aduri


 * 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Aduri

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a speedy delete as per G11 and A7, but anon user has removed the tag more than once (instead of using "hangon"). Started by promo-banned username, which is apparently the same anon user. This has no reliable sources, no claim of notability, its direct-to-dvd via Amazon.com. This is obviously intended to be used as a promotional campaign. A total misuse of Wikipedia. Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as just barely, barely meeting WP:NF. I will myself have a hand at removing author's COI, POV and ADVERT to bring it into line with policy and guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Care to explain what of the criteria it meets? It doesn't meet the principal WP:N criteria, and in terms of WP:NF I don't see it:


 * notdone The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * notdone The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * notdone Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * notdone The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * notdone The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * notdone The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * notdone The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[
 * notdone The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
 * notdone The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.


 * Secondary criteria for NF:


 * notdone The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand".
 * notdone The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
 * notdone An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.


 * This is basically a commercial effort trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform. However, a convincing argument of meeting any of the above criteria will make me reflect.--Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, an anon IP reverted your sensible changes.--Cerejota (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. What a colorful way to make sure your every word is emphsized at an AfD discussion. Almost like Making every sentence bold so no one could miss it. This is a nice parlor trick. Like if I were to reply toward your statements...
 * notdone checked to see if Amazon is considered worldide distribution or if this guieline as applied to major blockbusters is to be aplied the same way to small independent film which cannot possibly meet their distribution bankrole? OR
 * notdone see if the in-depth review or interviews souced in the article met the guidelines of WP:NF or were considered a reliable sources offered by individuals qualified to voice such opinion? OR
 * notdone checked to see if a new release independent film had to immediately become historically notable? OR
 * notdone stopped to consider that a film only months old could not possibly have an article 5 years after it's release? OR
 * notdone considered that a new release could not possibly have a survey by critics five years after its release, since it is not 5 years in the future? OR
 * notdone considered that a newly released film could not possibly be screened at a festival five years after its release as it is a NEW film? OR
 * notdone Consider that a new film could not and would not be used in any kind of "retrospective on the history of cinema"? OR
 * notdone consider that a new film still making the festival circuits has not been out long enough to find all the places that might give it awards? OR
 * notdone Consider that a new film is unlikely to be preserved anywhere until it gets older? OR
 * notdone Consider that a new film has not been out long enough to be picked up and taught anywhere? OR
 * notdone Consider that a new film is not expected to yet meet the guidelines intended for older films? OR
 * notdone Consider that the secondary criteria are SECONDARY criteria that indicate special circumstances? OR
 * notdone considered that inappropriate arguments out of context is not helpful? OR
 * notdone point out that the film did also not meet WP:BOOK or WP:ATHLETE?
 * Yes... wonderfully colorful. OR SHOULD I USE BOLD FOR EMPAHASIS?.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: no significant widespread notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Davewild. It doesn't appear to be blatant advertisement or spam. While not widespread notability, agree with Schmidt that it may barely meet some of WP:NF such as worldwide DVD release and reviews by local media.
 * File:Symbol_confirmed.svg Strong keep simply because of nominators obnoxious use of notdone notdone . Ikip (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: only one of the references is independently talking about the movie. All the others are press releases, film's website, composer's website, etc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: sufficient citations/notability is included. historically important b/c what is listed in Plot section. lso historically important from a South Asian American film perspective.--solofanindia (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (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.