Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age of Nigerian cinema


 * 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. Seeing as offline sources and sources used in the article appear to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Golden Age of Nigerian cinema

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The leading reference for the term "golden age of Nigerian cinema" is Wikipedia. My friend Mr. Google turns up 15 hits for the text as quoted, mostly mirrors. Widening it slightly gives only one thing that might qualify as establishing this as a thing, this from Al Jazeera, which does not properly support the term. I have to conclude this is a neologism or WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep: First of all, this article is not a stand alone topic on its own, but rather a spin-off for the article: Cinema of Nigeria. The "Golden Age" is a fluid term used to describe a specific period in Nigerian cinema history and it has been used in several books and journals to describe the said period: 1, 2, 3, 4, and oh, the aljazeera article was clearly talking about this same period, so it actually "properly supports" the term! While the term is not popular (which is expected, since it's about history), its usage for this article is indeed justified. If you feel the title misrepresents the topic (which I don't think it does), maybe you can suggest a better title or make a move request.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep: Many Google hits is not a sufficient criteria for notability. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information and if reliable sources are available to this effect, then the article is good to go. Fact: There are some notable articles with encyclopedic content which have reliable sources that you may not find online. I only just realized that the very sources I added to validate the information in this article have already been listed here by the creator! Eruditescholar (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep: The sources cited in the article shows that the term is suitable for stand-alone inclusion. The term has been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Although it is not required to have a stand-alone page, I feel like Jamie Tubers' decision to create said page is sound to say the least.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:15, 24 December 2016 (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.