Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babina (film)

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. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babina (film)

[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)

Complete failure to satisfy WP:NFILM - only sources I could find were either primary, non-independent or 2 line mentions.

Afaict A9 would not apply, but that would logically make sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk)

21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Everybody, this article should not be deleted because it's one of Ghana's old movies in the early party of 2000's which the locals or the indigence liked a lot. The movies is much popular in Ghana till date, if you search for it you would be amazed of the number of search queries or information you would find, as time goes the article would surely be improved upon Jwale2 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references here and more info about the screenwriter. The last source does not have much about the film itself but a bio of the screenwriter. There are however, lots of references about the movie but they are in snippets which I cannot access. Considering the age of this Ghanaian (a developing country) movie and the close proximity to the internet age particularly in Africa, I think we are more likely to find more RS in old newspaper publications and magazines which may not be available online. I am actually surprised there are online references to this movie given its age, which in my view adds to its notability. I will be adding some refs to the article.Tamsier (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier: - I'm not sure any of these arguments really hold up. Coverage of the screenwriter can't be INHERITED by the film. There's a source that covers the content/appearance of a trailer, but isn't a review so doesn't resolve any of NFILM's criteria. Most of the rest of your statement is WP:MUSTBESOURCES - you may well be right that there are offline sources. But that doesn't mean we can just assume their existence. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you or I cannot view the snippet sources does not mean they are unverifiable. WP:PAYWALL may apply here. My comment above was not referring to inherit.Tamsier (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film simply isn’t notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A German master's thesis on Ghanaian film had a chapter on the Babina films (there were three of them, or one film released in three parts if you like). Here is a link to an online working paper version of that thesis: [1]. More importantly for establishing notability, Babina was one of the subjects of the documentary Ghanaian Video Tales by Tobias Wendl, sponsored by DFG (Federal German Research Foundation). Website for documentary: [2], description of contents by Nordic Anthropological Film Association: [3]. That suggests notability under WP:NFO#2, "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Of course it may meet WP:GNG or one of the other WP:NFO criteria as well. Bakazaka (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a quick note on "notability is not inherited": this is a film, not an organization or album. Sure, WP:INHERITED is part of an essay on arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. But WP:NFO is a film notability guideline in which the "inclusionary criteria" include "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." So that possibility should be at least considered rather than dismissed. Bakazaka (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: - an interesting point, and certainly I should have been more careful about my INHERITED statement. However, alongside that inclusionary criteria is "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." - in practical effect, it only can gain notability if it is a legitimate CONTENTFORK off the notable person's own page. None of the cast/directors etc has their own page, so I don't think this holds up, and certainly their pages wouldn't be so busy that they couldn't include the entirety of this article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No argument there. (Warning: The following is a comment about Wikipedia, not any editors in this discussion.) But the fact that Wikipedia is not very good with African subjects, especially women, is a reason to improve content rather than delete it, in my opinion. Kalsoume Sinare, for example, is clearly notable, but she doesn't have a Wikipedia article. (Her husband plays football, so of course he does: Anthony Baffoe). That said, the academic sources and the documentary are covering the significance and impact of the film, especially its visual language and symbolism, which wouldn't be great content for an actor's article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't have to be able to read the snippets, we know they exist and that's enough per WP:NEXIST. These sources just about get it over the line for notability 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd and 3rd of those have nowhere near enough content to qualify - they aren't snippeting for me, in any case, they can be read normally. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem I have with NEXIST. Just because it EXISTS doesn’t make it usable, reliable, or even relevant. NFILM’s guidelines are clear as day. Trillfendi (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST is about the existence of sources, not about the existence of the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of the available reliable sources are here and here. It seems that people are imposing much higher standards on African films than are expected for American or European films. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coming back to this discussion to !vote. The film already meets WP:NFO#2 as one of the subjects of the documentary listed above, so that's technically enough by itself. Additionally, in the course of creating a page for Kalsoume Sinare, it became clear that this film was a major part of her career, and was also a major part (indeed, the launch) of Leila Djansi's career, which is further reason under the WP:NFO inclusionary criteria for having an article on the film. Having two reasonable targets also precludes redirecting or merging the article, and there is enough material in the sources already provided to improve the article considerably. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (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.