Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Father


 * 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. Hut 8.5 07:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My Father

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A film of no obvious importance. Sole source is a review which is quite amusingly droll about the lead's terrible acting - made me laugh, anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, almost no context. Mr.  Z- man  21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Extraordinarily strong keep, the review and other easily findable stuff (i.e. ) makes it clear that this is a significant film in South Korea.-- Nydas (Talk) 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's hope your enthusiasm carries over to making a better article. Mandsford 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. We have lots of stubs. What's the problem?-- Nydas (Talk) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem is folks who don't actually care about an article, but want to extraordinarily strongly keep it out of principle. You've demonstrated why this will never be more than a stub. Mandsford 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As opposed to folks who delete is just because it's a stub? This seems to becoming more and more common. Crap articles get deleted because they're crap articles, rather than because the subject matter is bad. In this case, the external link contains plenty of material for expansion. And no, it is not my duty to go through the little blue number routine just to save a legitimate stub. -- Nydas (Talk) 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Currently it is delete. Will change to Keep if sufficient reliable sources are provided to prove notability -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This link establishes notability. And no, just because I want this article kept it doesn't mean I have to improve it. Phil Bridger 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No indeed. You can vote keep every time it's AfDed as lacking any obvious merit, and if you don't fix the article in any way you may well get the option to do that a good few times.  Not sure how that fits with the idea of the project bieng all about the content, though :-) Guy (Help!) 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And that's two votes for "won't someone please do something". Nobody gives a shit about this article.  Some of us are willing to admit it. Mandsford 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy & Mandsford, I only said I don't have to improve it, not that I won't. If you had taken the trouble to look at the article you would have seen that I had already updated it to demonstrate notability before your latest comments. Phil Bridger 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Since it appears that improvements are on the way. Mandsford 21:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Since when do we delete reviewed films? Have those voting delete spent even a second trying to improve the article?  How have they learned to read the future and predict that an article will always be a stub and since when was being a stub cause for deletion? Nick mallory 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers: (1) When we don't see much of an article (2) No, not even a second. (3) We attended a seminar (4) Since deletion was left to editors. Mandsford 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Needing improvement doesn't equate to needing deletion. Rray 23:53, 15 November 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.