Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dadcula

:{{la|Dadcula}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dadcula Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Dadcula}})

High school project short that's appeared in two small local/regional film festivals. Page was created by the writer/star, appears to be a clear WP:PROMO issue. Notability is questionable. JamesG5 (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

::Keep: I am indeed aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Despite this, I believe that I have not introduced any significant bias into the article. Do note that, because I did not find any sources to cite them with, there are no sections beyond "Plot" and "Awards and nominations". I disagree with the notion that this is a WP:PROMO issue. Per WP:PROMO, the article does not advocate an ideology nor act as propaganda; it represents a neutral point of view and abides by the general standards of Wikipedia; it doesn't attack anyone's reputation; and it does not make use of puffery. While its notability is questionable, it does have sources to back it up, as well as an IMDb page in the "External links" section. I do not think it should be an issue to leave the article in the mainspace as a stub; additionally, it is agreeably in need of more citations. Please note the essay about not demolishing the house while it's still being built. –Matthew - (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

::Care to elaborate? –Matthew - (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with MarnetteD. This does not meet WP:NFILM. All of the sources mentioned are not on the subject per se and only mention it incidentally. The source that does, IMDB, has very little on it. The fact that this wikipedia page was created makes me think that the article creator, aforementioned star and writer, also created this page. The author mentions that it is in need of more citations, but I doubt that more citations exist after giving it an (admittedly cursory) look on Google.

Comment: The film has been screened at more than one festival and has received and been nominated for awards. On that basis, the only thing keeping it from sweet, sweet objective notability is secondary sources. But when such a thing occurs, it's hardly constructive to remove an article from a mainspace; the constructive thing would be to tag it as being in need of citations other than primary sources. Again, don't demolish the house before it's been built, folks. –Matthew - (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom for a blatantly non-notable film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

::Obviously it's acceptable to assume that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", because, well, that's completely true. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2013 and I'm aware of the general guidelines. But why is it that you consider the film blatantly non-notable? It has primary sources to act as citations; all it's missing is secondary sources, and the article can be accordingly tagged as relying heavily on primary sources, rather than jumping to deletion. –Matthew - (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

:::If you have been editing since '13 then you should know that the WP:NOTABILITY comes before the article is creasted - not on some far off distant day. MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

::::Primary sources and a lack of secondary sources do not equal non-notability. –Matthew - (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete high school film with no solid references. Fails notability.WP:NOTABILITY Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.