Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty and the Bull


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Beauty and the Bull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Couldn't find enough refs to help this pass NFILM. Found a bar and grill in Indiana with the same name, though. South Nashua (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So the fact it's been broadcast on national TV in two countries, & at least twice by my count, makes no difference at all... Lovely. Go ahead, delete it. Delete every page I've ever created. Delete every page I ever will create. Clearly, nobody gives a damn about anything I might add.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Plenty of films get on TV. Doesn't make it notable. South Nashua (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment When commenting on this, could editors please bear in mind that this article was 24 hours old when brought to AfD, and I'm aware that the creator was not totally finished with the article as they were in contact with me asking for advice on it. It is also an Oscar nominee from the pre-Internet era.

, I understand your emotional response as you have felt your work was unfairly deleted in the past, and very swiftly. This discussion will last at least a week and should come to a consensus, if not it may be open longer. At the moment, the article doesn't state clearly how it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The most likely way it might meet this is with reviews: either 'Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release', 'The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics' or 'if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' The other option is it is has 'been given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release', won a major award or been selected for preservation in a national archive.

It may be worth, Trekphiler, working on articles in draftspace first, then when they clearly meet guidelines, moving them across, or submitting via WP:AFC. Obviously this is an encyclopaedia and not all films will meet the notability criteria, but your efforts are appreciated. I've had articles deleted too; it certainly stings but please don't be put off.

Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My response is based in a general sense of complete indifference to my opinion whenever it's in opposition to anybody else's in a circumstance like this one, from accusations of vandalism here to a desire to delete all (or most of) the photos here to the deletion of a page without a word of discussion to accusations of stalking. This appears no different, & I expect my opinion to carry exactly as much weight now as ever before--exactly none. I've said what I have to say on the subject. Do what you will.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  08:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just put it in a draft until it's ready. Once it's in article space, it can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. South Nashua (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've added info and references. Google Books turns up lots of brief mentions in publications and I would be surprised if there were not reviews that met WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, but they would probably be in newspapers and magazines from the 1950s and I can't easily access that. As an Oscar nominee it would have garnered some attention, although nominated in a niche category, it is by Warner. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge any useful information to the article on Bette Ford.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep; I'd have thought the Oscar nomination would count for something in the notability stakes. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Oscar nominated film in 1955. Absolutely notable. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oscar-nominated in 1955, a time when award shows were far less ubiquitous than today. Boleyn makes a very reasonable presumption that the film would have been likely to have received a level of contemporary media coverage that would satisfy our GNG guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * keep though I wouldn't oppose merging it into Bette Ford. The Oscar nom affords some notability though I am finding it hard to find discussion of it outside of talk of her bullfighting career. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2017 (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.