Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttlecock (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 Keep - Seems BEFORE wasn't followed....again. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttlecock (film)

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If this mass nominating of notable articles continues Kevin believe me I'll be opening an investigation. You don't even try to look for sources. Tons of them. As for "no assertion of notability", do you honestly expect every article to say "I am a notable film because...".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are suggested criteria for judging notability of a film:

   The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
   The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
       Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
       The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
       The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
       The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
   The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
   The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
   The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If the article makes no reference to any of these, then there is no apparent reason for it to have a place in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kevin McE, but these "attributes" described in WP:NF are not mandates of the guideline, but are offered simply as examples of possible attributes to consider in looking for sources. Their existence or lack are not notability criteria. Go read WP:OEN. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've misread WP:NFILM. Those are additional criteria. The opening line for NFILM states "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow." So WP:GNG applies first. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And (guess what I'm going to ask) have you searched for and examined sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A film starring Alan Bates would easily pass WP:GNG. Probably worth reading WP:BEFORE too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article don't have to "assert" their notability. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a poor, poor nomination. Five seconds and I found this major NY Times article. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources being available that show notability even if not currently used in the article. I would urge the nominator to understand what both WP:NRVE and WP:BEFORE mean to this community. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-Enough info is there. Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2014 (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.