Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Princess Movie


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Princess Movie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Prime WP:NOTYET candidate. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject meets general notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.12 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This was deleted repeatedly in the past at The Secret Princess, resulting in the article getting salted. There was also some sockpuppetry that occurred around the article via the user . It looks like this did release since 2014, so it wouldn't qualify for speedy deletion - however notability does seem to still be very much in question. I'll also note that the synopsis is copyvio from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So far all I'm finding are very short, WP:TRIVIAL articles that primarily post pictures and use the plot synopsis to make up the majority of the article, like this and this. These might be RS in another situation, but so far I'm not finding a whole lot to show that it would now pass notability guidelines per NFILM. Most of it is just brief, trivial mentions of it screening. WP:ITEXISTS at this point in time (meaning it released) but that doesn't give notability, nor is it notable because of the people starring in the film. The claims in the article are all suspect, as they are not backed up by any independent sources. Given that there was a very concentrated effort to promote this film and its production company in the past, that makes them even more suspect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. While this seems like it should have more coverage given the people in the film, there still isn't enough coverage out there to justify this film passing WP:NFILM. It exists and has notable people in it, but neither of these things give notability. The broad majority of sources that have written about this film have only made brief, trivial articles - and some just outright reprint the press releases like this one. I'm aware that it's difficult for African films to gain coverage, but it's still necessary and there's not really anything here to suggest that offline sources exist or that if they do, that they're anything different from the sources I've found thus far. The award listed on the page is not the type that would give notability on Wikipedia, either partially or completely. This is not a knock against the festival, it's just that there are so many film festivals out there that the festivals and/or awards have to be independently notable in order to give any sort of notability. Most film festivals don't give this level of notability. It also doesn't help that the only source I could find about the festival shows that it won second place - not first place like it was implied in the article. I've since changed this. Being a runner up or in second place doesn't really give notability on Wikipedia even if the award was notable - typically notability is only given if the person/film/etc wins first prize. Since this is the fifth time that someone has tried to create this article, I'd recommend salting this entry as well to deter recreation before notability guidelines are met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This film is notable and a milestone in African Cinema. There are very few African animations on wikipedia and more should be created and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51F5:7B00:24DB:9462:63F5:B168 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You must provide coverage to show where this film is notable. Also, while it'd be nice to have more African animated films on Wikipedia, these films must still pass notability guidelines and they cannot remain on here simply because there aren't many on here and that it'd be nice to have more coverage on the various films. That's just not how Wikipedia operates. If you can show proof of coverage then that'd be different. I'm aware that some publications don't publish their work online, but there has to be something that can be verified and is an in-depth, independent RS in order for the film to pass NFILM. Saying that it should be kept for this or that reason without providing RS to back it up (that would pass muster at RS/N) doesn't really help much here, especially given that there was a concentrated effort to promote this movie on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I must also note that if any of these IPs are DrexMafia, please be aware that this would be seen as block evasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: KingstOOn festival is a World bank event. If all the references provided in the article is true then this is nothing but public information and not promotion as suggested. A simple search on google will turn up lots of articles and videos on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:51F5:7B00:24DB:9462:63F5:B168 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You would essentially have to provide coverage to show that this event is notable, enough to where it would warrant its own article. Raw Google search results cannot establish notability for an event because the results could be predominantly primary, be junk hits, or be some other type of hit that wouldn't be considered a notability giving reliable source on Wikipedia. Basically you can't just argue that something is notable (or conversely, non-notable) based on the specific number of Google hits for a search term because any search process will bring up non-relevant and non-usable results, regardless of where you search but especially with Google. See WP:GHITS for more information on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * keep: This film has over 440 votes on IMDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsna (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IMDb votes do not give notability on Wikipedia and the site isn't even considered to be a WP:RS on Wikipedia for even basic, trivial details, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote of known sock struck -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just realized that the article creator's name is nearly identical to a confirmed DrexMafia sock, . I'm going to block them for block evasion and I'm also going to open up a SPI for the IPs. I'd recommend leaving this open for the time being, though. It looks likely that this will be deleted and this will help prevent future attempts at recreation, as the past AfD only pertained to the film in its unreleased state. This AfD closing normally would cover the film as a released piece. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The current sources fail WP:NF and my searches found nothing helpful. I would be happy to reconsider if an in-depth review is found in a reliable source.  The 2nd place 'award' is not sufficient. Gab4gab (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2016 (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.