Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hood 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 Keep per consensus PeaceNT 08:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hood film

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. I can find no widespread use of this term. Nv8200p talk 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep - multiple ghits - Cybergoth 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better references provided I looked at the google hits Cybergoth mentioned above and, when you also take out Gavin Hood, I didn't see any popping up that actually talk about the subject of this article in any significant way. The article should probably be deleted as an unverified neologism unless better sourcing is provided.  Even if the information is kept, if the article can't be significantly expanded, it should be transferred to Wiktionary as a definition in its current form since all the article does is define the word in a couple of sentences.  It would need more verified historical content and analysis, etc, to work as an encylopedia entry. Dugwiki 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as film review and academic jargon for a subgenre (Google News Archive results, filtered). Problematically, the prototypical "hood film" that the article is about is often something cited that the current film is not, i.e. "not just another hood film". There are even a few Google Scholar results, several referring back to a full treatment by P.J. Massood in 1996. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The 70 Google Books results also show many possible sources including some that define it, not just applying it. One book terms it a "significant genre", a film dictionary calls it a "distinct subgenre of the gangster film". --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's sounding like this phrase does possibly appear in a few good sources. The next question is can a couple of these sources be appended to the article? And also, can the content of the article be expanded beyond just the dictionary definition of the term? If both of those things happen, I'll likely strike out my delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some good sources have already been added to the article. --Metropolitan90 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like the references and article have been expanded enough that I'm revising my recommendation to Keep. Appears to now be a reasonable stub article. :)  Dugwiki 17:24, 20 February 2007 (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.