Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hearts (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not qualifies WP:NFO or WP:GNG, no signs of notability, no reliable sources found to establish this is a notable movie. thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article looks well written enough to stay.  Docor726 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC) — Docor726 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: Per sources that are already in the article. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Even after looking at the above table would you keep your vote the same?  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. I found an archive page of The Asian Age and although it is a brief mention, it can be used to verify things in the article. I found an archived link of the second dead link which is a review. DNA India is independent. I don't think you understand what independent sources are. Gaylaxy is about queer issues, but they had no hand in making or releasing the film. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , * SO we have only two articles out of one has reliable and significant coverage and another has two paragraphs only.
 * * Gaylaxy is not a reliable source as their editorial processes are unknown and it's a possibly self-published one.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gaylaxy even has an article here. How about you stop responding to me because I’m not changing my vote? The closing admin will take everything into account. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional views of the suitability of sources can help clarify consensus

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC) I remain on my stand, as I don't think movie which has only 2/3 reliable sources should have an article on wikipedia. lack of sources and that too reliable sources is a sign of being notable itself. As the movie is recent one, it was notable, it should have more coverage of reliable sources. thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I can't find any sources that show that it was actually released. All the sources in the article talk about it as currently being made, and due for release. While they have some information about what's in the film, I don't think they add up to SIGCOV of the film (some have more about the actors than about this film). I have no problem with the reliability or independence of the sources, I just don't think there's enough coverage to meet the notability guideline for unfinished or unreleased films, WP:NFF, which says "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." If anyone can find evidence that the film was released, and reviews of the completed film which provide SIGCOV, I'm happy to reconsider. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find any evidence that the film was actually released - does not meet "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" as per WP:NFO - definitely non-notable - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:38, 17 August 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.