Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Bandits

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. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Bandits

[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)

I don't believe that this film meets the criteria for WP:NFILM and, to my understanding, it has not received significant coverage or achieved notability otherwise. Merging information from this article into the article about its director may be more appropriate. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a substantial coverage of the film in multiple offline books: Craddock, Jim, ed. (2004). "Cyber Bandits". VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever. Gale. p. 208., Nash, Jay Robert; Ross, Stanley Ralph (1986). "Cyber Bandits". The Motion Picture Guide, Volumes 1-10. Cinebook. p. 83., and Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (1997). "Cyber Bandits". Video Movie Guide 1998. Ballantine Books. p. 238. All have critical commentary in addition to cast info, plot synopses, etc. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added a few things to what has been added after nomination. Meets GNG and/or NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 17:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to additions from 4meter4 and Mushy Yank. Toughpigs (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unconvinced this subject is notable; all sources added to the articles added only seem to add like, a sentence of coverage at best. These fall under Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS at best. I can't check out the offline sources for obvious reasons but at a glance the lack of coverage here doesn't show much inherent notability beyond verifying the film existed, which doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:NFILM, which states: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." So far all of the sources I'm seeing are falling under at least one of these. Unless actual significant coverage can be shown, I'm falling firmly under the fact that this subject isn't notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 Some of the sources have multiple paragraphs, the fact that we chose to only use them in a certain way is not indicative of what is inside them. The delete argument here is both spurious and in bad faith, as you are basically accusing those putting these sources forward as lying and further being rude to people improving the article. Way to be WP:UNCIVIL.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cast Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, as I am merely basing this off of what I am able to access and off of relevant policies in relation to them. Saying a source may not comply with notability policies is in no way rude, and I apologize if my wording may have come off that way.

Allow me to rephrase my concerns so that my stance is a bit clearer: The sources added to the article are sources I am unable to view in their entirety, and the fact only one sentence has been added from any given source indicates coverage is sparse if the source is not being used in its entirety. For an AfD, illustrating that a source meets SIGCOV is the foremost rationale to Keep it, and the fact I am not seeing that makes me hesitant. I apologize for being a bit hasty in my assessment.

To clarify: Which sources contain multiple paragraphs? I would appreciate some clarification so I can more accurately gauge source content. I'd be willing to change my vote if this coverage is significant, as a few SIGCOV sources on top of the others definitely should act as enough coverage to act as the base of an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 realizing I forgot to ping you to notify you of my reply. Would you be willing to clarify the sourcing situation above? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviews here and here, as well as this and the sources already in the article are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2024 (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.