Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (Non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  22:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo: Can You Imagine?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a student film that fails the film notability test. References for the background section deal with exclusively with Kosovo and not the film itself. No reliable sources that address the actual film in detail are used. Many references don't exist or are blogs such as the "East of Main" reference. The behind the scenes section exists of comments stemming from the film's website. ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, it's not a student film, according to IMDb, it's a documentary film. It was shown on RT several times (preview, "Politika" article noting the film was shown in 60 countries worldwide), has several secondary sources and print media discussing the film (,, , etc.), the film received support from Princess Linda, wife of Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia , and it's a highly notable film.


 * That's why I say Keep, but add these references to the article. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that the sources given here are credible and meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. As MichaelQSchmidt said in the previous nomination for deletion, where the result was Keep, "it must be remembered that documentary films rarely get the coverage of studio financed blockbusters, so notability is not dependent upon popularity. Per WP:CSB, non-English sources are allowable if translations are properly attributed." IMDb, combined with the references given here and some from the article, should suffice to give this film notability on Wikipedia. --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. IMDb is considered trivial coverage and does not establish notability as pointed out in the policy. IMDb can be edited by users much like wikipedia can and therefore cannot be used to gauge notability. Hell it even says the description was written by Malagurski himself. These sources are tabloids  with the first two simply mentioning the film in passing. The Politika source discusses his latter film and gives this one a passing mention as well. Prince Tomislav of Yugoslavia is hardly notable for anything other than being "nobility" and his wife's simple marriage to him does not establish notability for her, let alone for the film. It's obvious there isn't enough coverage to "actually write a whole article" with the sources available. Most of the article deals only with Kosovo and not the film while the much of the rest is purely promotional sounding and filled with comments from the film's website. -- ◅  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, according to your comments on one talk page, all media in Serbia are tabloids, including Večernje novosti, a renowned Belgrade-based newspaper, and Politika, the oldest daily newspaper in the Balkans. "Politika" clearly says this film was broadcasted in 60 countries, which is certainly notable. There are several reliable sources that attest to the importance of this film. Not to mention that the film, directed by Boris Malagurski, features prominent individuals such as Lewis MacKenzie, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor, Michel Chossudovsky and others. --UrbanVillager (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the many unreliable tabloid sources you inserted into the article. Now focus on the discussion here. This AFD doesn't need you conflating discussions. Are those three not tabloids? Is Večernje novosti not a tabloid? Do you honestly question that? Do bother to check the links. Don't say there are several independent and reliable sources when you can't even produce them. There aren't enough to warrant an entire separate article. You're having trouble finding sources that barely have it in passing mention. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Večernje novosti is not a tabloid, it's a renowned Serbian newspaper and news source which exists for almost 60 years now. It's also the leading Serbian book publisher, with over 5 million books on diverse cultural topics sold, 159 titles including books by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Bulgakov, Nabokov, Faulkner, Orwell, Kafka, Sabato, Andric, Crnjanski, Selimovic, etc. But enough about "Novosti", I've already provided the links regarding the article in question, you've disputed them, now it's up to other editors to voice their opinion. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a tabloid. Live with that fact. -- ◅  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you just changed the Večernje novosti article on Wikipedia so it says it's a tabloid. With no reference. Smooth. :) --UrbanVillager (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like Večernje novosti is a tabloid. However, this refers to the format of the newspaper (ie smaller than broadsheet).  It is *also* a reliable source, 60 year old newspaper, etc, etc.  Isn't that great?  You're both right...  Th e S te ve   05:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and the Daily Mail was founded in 1896. Please stop this nonsense that the founding date is relevant to a source's reliability. I also linked you a bunch of sources, pick out the bunch which you prefer. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 11:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. We are not here to judge truth or not of a topic, but instead to determine if a topic of a internationally screened independent film has enough coverage in enough sources, even if non-English, to meet the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF. While this documentary will never have the market coverage of Star Trek, Star Wars, or Harry Potter, meriting inclusion within Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about "truth". There aren't enough sources to write an entire seperate article. It's propped up by Kosovo history and promotion quotes. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 12:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Also add aforementioned references to the article. --Bolonium (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A year long inactive account who returned just to vote to keep an article. Nothing suspicious about that. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You definitely deserve a barnstar for pointing that out. Just because I haven't edited with my account doesn't mean I haven't visited Wikipedia. --Bolonium (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nothing really presented as a reason for a deletion. This is obviously by far notable film, that influenced a lot of things, and with numerous sources. I am afraid that this is only part of a WP:DISRUPTPOINT violation by User:PRODUCER on the User:UrbanVillager edits. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:16, 13 November 2012 (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.