Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Anak Menteng


 * 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   merge to Obama Anak Menteng (film). Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama Anak Menteng

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BK. 2 sources dead. 2 of the Globe and the BBC sources are about the film. That leaves 1 source, from the Globe, to discuss the book. And it is a trivial mention. Fails WP:BK... No multiple sources, only trivial mentions, no awards. Lionel (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Lionel (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge sparingly into Public_image_of_Barack_Obama. Content like this doesn't need to have independent notability to have a sentence or two in that article. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to add it.--Chaser (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into new film article referenced below.--Chaser (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is about the book and the film, which are pretty well inseparable, so the sources are fine. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect that the article was created as a promo piece in anticipation of the film. It should have been deleted at that time. In any event, the book is not notable. If the film is notable then the article should be moved. Lionel (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What should it be moved to? This is the title of the film. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (perhaps move a sentence or two to Public image of Barack Obama as suggested by Chaser above). The current article is clearly a puff piece aimed at promoting a book/film: the most significant content in the article is that the book was written in four days after one month of research, which indicates the lack of encyclopedic appeal. An article on some aspect of the issue (perhaps political consequences) might be created if something develops, but the book/film themselves are definitely not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't move/merge content from one article to another and then delete the first article because it violates the site license. See WP:MAD for more information.--Chaser (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my clumsy expression: I am recommending delete (my preference), or merge a sentence or two. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned the most significant content in the article is the list of references that include significant coverage in The Washington Post, the Jakarta Globe and the BBC. The number of days in which the book was written and researched is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the article should be kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW the Post source is a dead link.Lionel (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is ostensibly about the book. On this account there is a trivial mention in the Globe and completely fails notability. The only possible way this article could be notable is via the film. Now, if we're trying to Keep this article because of it's impact on the film, the sources for the film are also weak. The sources fail all 5 criteria of WP:FILM.  The sources are promotional, and are not reviews of the film. Sources titled "American Boy Cast..." and "Film makers Plan..." do not establish notability for a film. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Lionel (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep and rewite only if re-written . (merge now as per my comment below)  As article title, the book does not have enough coverage to meet notability guidelines for a stand-alone article... however, the film has perhaps enough coverage, sources not currently included nor suitable for expanding a "book" article, for the article to be re-written and re-named Obama Anak Menteng (film), with the book mentioned in a sub-section in context to the film (as with many film articles), instead of the other way 'round.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Schmidt, just wanted to clarify... If not rewritten, then your vote is Delete? Lionel (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a vote. Suggestion toward "keepable" improvement of article through regular editing per WP:ATD. Corrected above. If no one else cares to do it, I feel confident that I could bring it into line with a simple rewrite. Shall I do so?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay... I have re-written the "book" article... and suggest the article about the book be replaced with this new edit, focusing on the far better covered film... as the film has wide coverage to meet WP:NF and the book by itself does not. Note, I included contextual information about the book, and expanded and further sourced about the film. And yes, there is room for continued improvement. See: User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Obama Anak Menteng (film). Thanks -- Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Impressive. The inclusionist in me is breathing a sigh of relief. The deletionist in me is bummed a perfectly good AfD got away. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure it's a win-win. As the film article is nearing completion, I will complete my work on it, move it to mainspace as a new article, and be back to suggest a redirect to the newer article. Seem fair dinkum?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and set redirect to Obama Anak Menteng (film) to preserve histories and contributions of other editors. The new article has the sourced independent notability the book article lacks, and has sourced information about the book included in an encyclopdically  contextual manner.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse merge into new article as creator of the original article. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 23:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Merge into movie article as detailed above. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 07:10, 7 August 2010 (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.