Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aduri (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aduri

Article on an independent film. Brought here for further discussion after a deletion review of the previous discussion. In particular it has been argued that there is ~~hardly~~ not sufficient independent coverage and that a DVD availability at amazon does not ~~really~~ amount to worldwide distribution as this might be intended by WP:NF to refer to the theatrical release. If those concerns cannot be addressed, delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep barely meets WP:NF, I think; not spam, so I lean towards keep Chzz ► 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets WP:NF. Not spam. The key words in the nomination again are hardly and not really. These are weasel words pointed out by Wikipedia itself. Amazon distribution is also worldwide. Movie is independently reviewed by DesiChutney and listed on imdb.com and various other independent sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.32.56 (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, i adjusted the wording somewhat. This nomination actually only summarizes the concerns of the DRV. With respect to distribution of the film, I understand WP:NF to refer to the possibility that people can go to a cinema and view the theatrical release and not just that a copy of the DVD can be bought in an on line shop which is no sign of distinction.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable, not a single reliable source, and started by a blocked promotional username, which then apparently double !voted in the WP:DRV.

Self-distribution via Amazon considered world-wide distribution is a novel idea, and against the spirit of WP:NF's intent with this clause. The idea is that a notable movie would be procured enough that world-wide distribution actually that actually happens, not the possibility of world-wide distrubition, which is what Amazon offers. That said, a search for "Aduri" in world-wide Amazon.com websites revealed that it was not available in Amazon.at[1], Amazon.ca[2], Amazon.ch[3], Amazon.fr[4], Amazon.de[5], Amazon.jp[6] or Amazon.co.uk[7].
The only Amazon which has it is Amazon.com[8]. Being web-available != world-wide distribution. I hope that people would understand that this movie is in fact not distributed world-wide, as Amazon.com doesn't distribute world-wide. In fact, I doubt the DVD has paid the licensing fee required for multi-region distribution.
This article was created by a now-blocked promotional account User_talk:Adurimovie with the intention of promoting the movie (c'mon!, the name of the user is "Adurimovie", if that is not spam, I do not know what spam is).
Anything put on film and sold commercially is in IMDB, so this is hardly evidence of notability, it is evidence of not being a hoax. No one disputes the existence of this film, just it being notable enough for an encyclopedia article. IMDB is as reliable as Wikipedia itself, that is to say, not reliable.
DesiChutney is hardly a reliable source for notability, being the equivalent of a blog, generally not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia.

These AfDs and the article itself have atracted a surprisingly high number of similary argumentative anon-IPs. This should also be taken into consideration. I am not generally a deletionist, but in this case I have yet to hear a keep argument that doesn't amount either to a personal attack (how dare you attack independent cinema!!!) or WP:ILIKEIT. If this meets WP:NF tell us why, following our rules for inclusion. --Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing provided in the article does not establish notability. None are from reliable sources. My own search was unable to find any reliable sources either. Claiming sales on Amazon represents worldwide distribution is tantamount to saying that this criterion for establishing notability is pointless as Amazon will sell anything that it can obtain and ship, including self-published books. So essentially, everything has worldwide distribution. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as just barely, barely meeting WP:NF. I myself had a hand at removing author's COI, POV and ADVERT to bring it into line with policy and guideline. Earlier author matters not one whit once it belongs to Wiki.... specially if COI, POV, and ADVERT are removed by independent editors with no connection to the project. IMDB might act only to WP:Verfy cast crew, but these informations have been WP:Verified by othe independent sources Pub Films,MSN, Moviefone, Cinema Montreal, All Movie Guide, Movie Clock, so besmirching one WP:Verification pales when looking at all the others. Thank you for granting that the film exists. Further, the DesiChurney review is a credible source independent of the film. Stating "equivalent to a blog" (a statement itself not sourced so may only be opinion), is not the same as actually "being a blog". Kinda like saying a Ford Pinto is "equvalent to a indie racecar". "Equivalence" is not the same as "being". And there are still the unaddressed matters of Passion for Cinema and Maryland Films. Think they would overlooked if they were not mentioned at the AfD? Its weak, but it meets (barely) the guidelines for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for totally failing WP:MOVIE. Not a single proper review or other article indicating to its notability is included in the article.--Sloane (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2009 (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.