Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHMILY: A Love Story


 * 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   delete. T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

SHMILY: A Love Story

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator without improvement to the article; the article was rejected at Articles for Creation immediately after it was posted in article space. Essentially this is a Malaysian indie film with no notable actors and which has received little or no critical attention (zero Google News hits for the title). No reliable sources have been provided and I found none in two searches (I expect there may be localized non-English sources but I was unable to do an effective search; I doubt that they would contribute to widespread notability.) Ubelowme U Me  20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This article should be kept. It is a very popular film in the small town of Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. While it may not have yet received international success, it has been entered into several film festivals and is getting more popular throughout Malaysia. The film just needs a chance to grow and branch out more; keep the page. The only reason why there isn't more press around this article is because it is in a different language. There is indeed a lot of press out there, just because you cannot speak the language and find the sources does not mean that it is non-existent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alilrandom (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree- being in another language does not mean that something cannot be notable. However, the sources must be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia. Right now the sources on the article are by the company that produced/created the film, which makes them WP:PRIMARY sources, which cannot show notability in any context. They can be used to back up trivial factoids, but primary sources should really only be used when there are multiple independent and reliable sources that also state the same thing. In other words, you should have so many other sources that using a primary source is redundant. Also, being popular in a town does not equal to notability to Wikipedia's guidelines for films and we can only keep articles if the film is notable in the here and now per WP:NFILM. We can't keep an article because it might eventually meet notability guidelines. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm not trying to be mean. It's just that the standards for meeting notability on Wikipedia are pretty high and nine times out of ten even the most interesting subjects lack the reliable sources to have an article about them. As far as the sources go in other languages, I would recommend that if you speak the language then you should try to help put them on the article or post them on the article's talk page. Just be aware that the source must be by a secondary and reliable source. This means anything by the production company, their friends, relatives, agents, or anyone involved in the production, sale, or promotion of the film will be considered a primary source. This includes press releases, even if they were reprinted by a notable and independent source. Since you appear to be involved with the production company that released the film, I encourage you to read through WP:COI and seek the assistance of some of the people in the film wikiproject (WP:FILM) in order to keep things neutral and to help avoid any sort of conflict. There's no rules against you creating or editing articles about things that you are personally involved in, but because you are so closely involved it's hard to remain neutral on the subject matter and it's very easy to see notability where there might not be any per Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, Wikipedia's guidelines are incredibly strict and just because your film does not meet the guidelines does not mean anything against the film. It just means that it doesn't meet guidelines at this time and we cannot keep an article around in the hopes that it will become more notable or that the article will help give it more coverage. That's not really what Wikipedia is for, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did a wide search using just the term "SHMILY" and apart from the random usage of the term in general, there were no reliable sources to show that this short independent film meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. What I did find that pertained to the movie were all primary sources and I don't see where this got any sort of coverage from secondary and reliable sources. Being in a foreign language means that it can be harder to find sources, but it's not impossible to find them and I couldn't find anything. Since the film doesn't seem to have a foreign language title (in other words, it's being released under the title "SHMILY" and not under anything using Rumi or Jawi characters), hits in other languages should show up in a more extensive search and they didn't. The bottom line is that this film doesn't meet notability guidelines and we can't keep an article in the hopes that it will get that notability eventually or because it could be useful to anyone researching the film. (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:CRYSTAL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: SHMILY has been recognized as an independent film by the Internet Movie Database, IMDB, although support informed us that it might take several days to appear on the site. Wiki's guidelines for notability state, "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." Considering the national archive it mentions is only located within the United States, SHMILY is not eligible to be included. However, it is still included in the IMDB database, which is a movie archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alilrandom (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the film itself (not simply information about the film) was verifiable as stored in ANY national archive, that would go far toward showing it as notable. IMDB is not an archive and being listed in their database is not a notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for now as TOO SOON. Return this brand new article to its author User:Alilrandom as an in-work userspace draft. Short films have a difficult time showing Wikipedia notability, and one from Malaysia would seem twice blessed by the same curse of difficulty. As it only began screening last month, allow its author to continue searches for suitable sources... but out of article space.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have said exactly the same as MQS here, if he hadn't already said it for me. User should review available sources in say, six months, and resubmit then if notability can then be shown.  David_FLXD  (Talk) Review me 04:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 20 July 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.