Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zohar (film)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Zohar (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

spam from Voidz, creator of adverts for Morocco Film Production (afd) and Abdelhay Elanbassi (afd) who are behind this film. it's a non notable film. the refbombing on who the producer is is telling to the intent of this article (look at ref 6, no mention of the producer). article is trying to hide behind a mass of sources, hoping the number and language would disuade examination. a look at translations of some of the sources shows deception. 6 sources are used to claim the film got an award. looking at some shows it was simply in the running. Once again Voidz is misrepresenting sources, claiming they say what they don't. Voidz has shown a repeated pattern of promotion, falsification and deception. this article is a promotional piece based on lies and deception and needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like for editors proficient in French and Arabic languages to search for the film title and for either the director's name or producer's name. I found this, which appears to be an interview with the director that mentions Zohar a few times. We're not going to find English-language publications about this film, I think, so we should make an effort to find coverage in other languages. Film reviews would be especially helpful. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot find any sources for this film. It apparently has been entered in a number of festivals but has received little or no critical notice. Maybe it's too soon or maybe it's a dud, but let's drop it for now and let it come back if and when it's notability can be established. Joja  lozzo  01:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, this interview with the film-maker (in French, Moroccan national daily) provides some coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak keep as it seems that the film is a graduation project of the film director. Still, seems to be a big deal in Morocco.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A filmmaker talking about her film is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG defines not "independent of the subject" the following: "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". An interview published by a reliable source such as this is considered independent (per WP:RS) and is a point in favor of the film's notability. However, we cannot seem to find more like this; the threshold of needing multiple sources (from WP:GNG) applies here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Context matters". Who checked the facts? Did they check what she said? Did they simply publish it as her views? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If that magazine has a reputable publishing history, then we would trust what has been published. In any case, it is important to assess the notability of this film on its own. We know it exists, and ignoring the behavior of the editor who has been blocked, we assess the topic independently to determine if it crosses the threshold of notability. As you can see, I've only commented so far because I haven't seen enough total evidence to establish notability. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again I draw your attention to what you linked above. Context matters. Sources don't get a blanket pass. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." This is just the film maker talking about her film. I'd be amenable to an argument that because the source chose to publish an interview with her that that suggests notability for her, but that is not inherited to her films. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw what you cited. I was looking at this in particular: "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." This is a circulated national daily as opposed to a blog, so I think that passage applies here and validates the interview unless the daily is not considered reliable as a whole. I've seen interviews with filmmakers on blogs and similar websites, and I think this source publishing an interview has more credibility. However, to get back to the larger matter, I've Googled a few different ways to find additional coverage but cannot find anything, so I'll go ahead and endorse deletion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 18-minute short student project film. No notable people involved.  May or may not have been shown at a festival.  No indication of notability by any reasonable standard. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this student project. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:43, May 5, 2013‎
 * 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.