Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misogynist (2013 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynist (2013 film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The strongest notability claim here is awards from minor film festivals that are not internationally prominent enough to satisfy NFILM #3 (which is looking for film festivals on the Cannes-Berlin-Venice-Toronto tier, not just every film festival that exists), and absolutely none of the footnotes being used are reliable or notability-building coverage: there are two citations to the filmmaker's directory entry on Amazon Prime, one to IMDb, one to a Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is talking about himself in the first person on a podcast, and one to an online magazine that would probably be okay amid a mixture of solid sources but isn't reputable or widely-circulated enough to singlehandedly get this film over WP:GNG if it's the only non-primary source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat and team, Thank you for your timely reaction and guidance, after understanding why it was tagged for deletion, am recommending that the speedy deletion tag could be removed, as I improve it by adding more references to make it qualify for notability as per rules and guidelines.Thanks a lot Ndahiro derrick (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speedy deletion tag on it, and you haven't actually added any sources that are making a difference — the new sources you've added are still unreliable blogs and/or primary sources that aren't support for notability. We're looking for reliable sources, which is not the same thing as "just any web page you can find that has the film's title in it". Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of notable people did star and work on this film, but there's no independent sources about this movie besides this blog review. IMDb is not a reliable source for anything, so the festival award wins listed here can't establish notability if not cited with a reliable source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing notable found. Kolma8 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.