Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Fair Palestine


 * 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. JERRY talk contribs 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In Fair Palestine

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable amateur film that gets very few google hits, and no significant coverage in secondary sources. Pollytyred (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok even though i created this page by mistake the movie is still credible and has been the work of many students in Palestine for over 2 years. This movies purpose is to show the western audience (You) that Palestinian teenagers are just like everyone else, the movie is in english, both Shakespearian and normal. If you had cared to click the you tube hits you would have gotten the trailer to the movie that we created. We have an official website [www.rnjpalestine.net] and the DVD release will be in June. For more info i'm here. Oh and many arabic newspapers covered the event, something you might not find in google when searching for the movie in english.--jo (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all the google hits i get are on youtube or similar sites. No claim to notability at all. Cryo921 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not for the reasons above but because this page was created by mistake and its defense:
 * Comment Well, you have to remember this is English Wikipedia. If we can't find sources for the movie in English, then it's NN in the English world. You could add it to the Arabic Wikipedia if you like. Youtube also doesn't assert notability for anything if it hasn't been discussed in greater detail at other relevant sources. Doc Strange (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The movie is in English so why would we have it on Arabic Wikipedia? --jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Violates Notability (films). Film is not widely-distributed and did not receive any awards even in Palestine. The main website of the film suggests that it is targeted toward an American audience and was created in a local setting. --Amlebede (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentTrue it was created for an American audience but distribution hasn't begun yet we all have assignments and exams and no one has time to sit in front of a mac to make the DVD so we can have it copied so it can be distributed.Were only 17 and were finishing High school--jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete i changed my mind, i mean were going to have to start a wikipedia page one day and were going to have to go through this anyways so now and not later. If any of you saw the youtube trailer you would see that for children in Palestine an occupied country with no resources or money this is great just getting the trailer out, so why are you opposing this, i mean we are here, we have a movie that isn't at all bad and we just want to get to more people.--jo (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I added a couple of references to the article from the English-media sources available. Considering the film first premiered about two weeks ago, it is very likely that there will be more English-language coverage in the coming weeks and months, particularly as it is distributed and shown in other locales. True, we could delete for now and recreate when the coverage in English is more copious, but why do the same work twice? Further, as jo points out, there are a number of Arabic language news sources that covered the film's premiere in Ramallah. I am wondering why these cannot be used to confirm its notability. (Doc Strange says above that if it's NN in the English language media world, then it's not notable to English wikipedia.) Could someone point me to the relevant guideline/policy sub-section that supports this view? Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ans. WP:V does allow non-English sources. See WP:RSUE, Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. An English-lang film could in theory be deemed notable based on non-English sources.


 * Thanks for the info HG. Jo provided some Arabic-language sources on my talk page. I'm reposting them below.  T i a m u t talk 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I recommend looking at Notability (films). (For instance, sufficient if: The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Or: The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, etc.) The student film-makers should understand that inclusion in wikipedia is a significant hurdle and no reflection on the quality of their achievements. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for bringing those to the table. So the three links Jo provided me are:


 * Al-Watan Syria
 * Al-Quds Palestine
 * Dar Al-Hayat Jordan

These three links show that the film got coverage in the mainstream media of three different Arab countries, largely because it is, per the notability guidelines, "a unique accomplishment in cinema". The articles all find it interesting that these Palestinian high school students produced and acted in a film they wrote using Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as the basis though set in a modern day Palestinian city. The film premiered at the major theater in Ramallah to an overcapacity audience of 800 people where it was met with general accolades just a couple of weeks ago. Other screenings will be forthcoming and it's sure to gain more coverage as time goes on. By my reading of the notability guidelines HG provided and these articles links Jo provided, I think the article should be kept.  T i a m u t talk 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Info. For what it's worth, WP takes note of many High school film programs in the United States but this film may well be unique within the Palestinian context. HG | Talk 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Tiamut - mainstream coverage, and constitutes a unique accomplishment in cinema. Addhoc (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Tiamut: notability established (and just to remind some contributors to the discussion: there are no guidelines or policies that require the main sources be in English). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also: there's a very recent Reuters transcript of some TV coverage of the film. Is raw Reuters a reliable source? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks fo the Reuters. Though of limited value in establishing notability (absent corroboration of its usage), the feed is reliable for informational content. HG | Talk 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note to the closing admin and others : it seems that the page has been redirected to In Fair Palestine: a story of Romeo and Juliet (movie). The deletion template has not been appended to the new page. Should I go ahead and do this? Or is someone about to close the discussion anyway? It's been six days now. New sources have been found in the Arab press, all that are deovted just to a discussion of the film, it genesis and premiere. Those, plus the unique accomplishment aspect leads me to believe that notability has indeed been met. Thanks for your time.  T i a m u t talk 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tiamut ..in it´s context it is rather unique, Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, article has been rescued w/strong sources indicating notability &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * comment/keep, if this article is kept the scriptwriters of the movie are willing to improve this article and add more to it, they just don't want to put a lot of effort into something that might be deleted.jo (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are enough references in the article to justify its existence in wikipedia. More the topic is interesting. Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (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.