Talk:Explorer (film)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 September 2022 by reviewer HitroMilanese (talk · contribs).

Film: British / Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Non-consensus move to draft[edit]

This article was reviewed as fit for article space 22 days ago, but moved from published back to draft space on 26th Sept with no clear explanation and no attempt to reach consensus. This included no attempt to articulate and explain issues on the talk page. One of the tags added to the page is lack of WP:N. It is clear from the references that there are third party reviews of the film in reputable journalist publications. A quick google finds more, including [1]The Times, [2]Financial Times, [3]Telegraph, and [4]Empire. Notability is independent of references in the article - see WP:NEXIST. Therefore with at least 6 third party articles on the subject therefore clearly meets WP:N. I concur there are likely issues with the article as is (it is very much a stub) but one expects these to be articulated on the talk page first. Turner537 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

The sources being removed, and which I put back in this edit are reliable. WP:BRD. WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. As per the Edit Summaries, the issue is not whether the sources are reliable or not. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summaries do not provide clear WP:BRD discussion for the edits you have made - such as this one [[5]]. Please explain and articulate on the issues that you are identifying, as these are unclear. The text put back in via [[6]] is supported by RS as per 7&6=thirteen. ResonantDistortion (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]