Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Road of Love

The Road of Love

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The Road of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Does pass WP:NF The source of the film itself is available, This article is about a festival film that is currently on public display Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • None of the coverage is significant, they are all just listings that the film exists. Existence is not the same as Notability. And there is no independent coverage of the film at the festival. Again, just being in a festival (unless its a major major festival) does not signify notability. BOVINEBOY2008 11:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• -BOVINEBOY The coverage is remarkable for this film, The filmmaker is remarkable and the film itself has been remarkable in Iran Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Please provide citation. There are none in the article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • BOVINEBOY There are citations in the article! Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • There is only one CITATION in the article, and it is IMDb, which should not be used as a source anyway per WP:CITEIMDB. There are EXTERNAL LINKS which are not citations, and they are all just database listing, not actually significant coverage. Can you provide an article that is covering the film? Like an interview from a credible source about the film or a review of the film? BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - As per nom. based on unreliable sources. @ Hoseinkhosravii you can NOT vote because you are the creator of this article. you can just comment. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Spada II ♪♫ As per nom , what do you repeat everywhere? Do you just want to delete all the articles?Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Hoseinkhosravii: "per nom" means "in reference to" (per) + "the person who nominated the article" (nom). It's a piece of jargon which editors use in Deletion debates. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The references are accuracy and significantعلیرضا رضوی (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Apart from the film's IMDb page and a mirror site, the references are just video streaming sites. Nobody is saying that the film doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I recommend that before people vote, they read WP:NFSOURCES so they can understand what would be required. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ~dom Kaos~ But according to WP:NF, the resources are enough for the article and your opinion is the opposite, You should also consider the importance of the article in the country of origin Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • To quote WP:NF

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.

Bolding is mine for emphasis. BOVINEBOY2008 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)