Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Django (2014 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Django (2014 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Short film from new writer director. Dubious notability. Refused Speedy. Reads like an advertisement. Perhaps in a decade or two. Scope Ceep (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:NF. Should not be confused with the other Django a Japanese short film of 2014. Userfy upon request, but  should be sent to MOS:FILM to learn style and WP:NF to understand what shows a film as notable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I was considering to start an AfD discussion myself. Clearly fails WP:NF. Cavarrone 13:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What can I do to prevent deletion? I did not understand what you meant by 'reads like an advertisement'. The article is objective. The film has actually been screened in a lot of festivals around the world, the article only cites some. By the way, the Japanese film has been released a lot later than this one, and its original name is not 'Django', but 'Sansurai no jango'. Iamcool2014 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes we do understand that the Japanese film has a different original title, but its 'Django' is searchable for a 2014 film for its being an Anglification of that Japanese title. And yes, the festival citations show this one has screened, but merely having screened (existence) in not the same as notability. To prevent deletion, we need need articles in independent and reliable sources offering commentary about the film itself. See WP:SIGCOV. Bring some forward and I would gladly reconsider my opinion. And PS: The term "reads like an advertisement" is a poor argument that speaks toward a perception of and often addressable article tone and style (happens often with articles created in good faith by new editors), and addressable concerns are rarely a decent reason to delete. Please refer to MOS:FILM to see that current article format is problematic.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:51, 14 September 2014 (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.