Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seductio


 * 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. SNOW Keep: no sense in leaving something opened for an article that has been significantly improved, clear demonstrations of notability and the nominator clearly meant to be disruptive Sadads (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Seductio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It isn't notable. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This film, released in 1987, has no critic's reviews or user reviews listed in the Internet Movie Database, and it hasn't even received the 5 ratings from users which would be needed to calculate an average rating. I don't know how it could qualify as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand using the several French-language sources referenced at fr:Seductio. Nominator appears to have been subsequently banned for trolling. ―cobaltcigs 05:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article does need improvement, but we judge notability based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current quality of the article — and the existing fr: article does have suitable, notability-bolstering sources in it that we can simply copy over. A film's notability does not depend on whether its critical or media attention has been indexed by IMDb or not — sure, that can be a valid place to check, but it's not the only place we need to check: the absence of such links in that source is not in and of itself a notability-breaker if other sources can be found elsewhere. And neither user reviews nor user ratings are relevant at all, either, given that we don't reference Wikipedia content to user-generated sourcing. Better sources are available here, it's just necessary to look at more than just IMDb to find them. I've been improving the referencing significantly; the trick, as I just learned, is that at the time the sources were spelling the filmmaker's name as "Bachar Chbib" instead of "Bashar Shbib" — once I found that out and made the necessary search term adjustment, the film's sourceability literally exploded. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep article has good sourcing, passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as has been improved with the addition of reliably sourced content from The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette and other Canadian reliable sources so passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Bearcat's excellent improvements. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (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.