Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Police

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Police

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

Fails WP:FILM JeremyMcClean (Talk) 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not shown. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Unsourced on a BLP. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's only one sentence long! 108.125.251.218 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Come on now. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (see below) While it is but one of many films from a rather prolific Nigerian director,[1] and while it might merit a metion in an article on the director had it existed, there is not enough available to source and expand the article to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this film may be notable, you wouldn't know from the article. Unfortunately, it cites no reliable sources. Until the article is properly sourced, policy is to delete. HeartSWild (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not "policy" to delete such difficult-to-source articles... though it is becoming a common practice. Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability #3 itself counters this idea of immediate deletion when it is itself supported by "This criterion ensures that our coverage of important films in small markets will be complete, particularly in the case of countries which do not have widespread internet connectivity (or do not have online archives of important film-related publications) and whose libraries and journals are not readily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia." Lack of readily available sources is always of a concern, yes... but "guideline" itself acknowledges the difficulties inherent in seeking sources in problematic circumstances, and still encourages consideration of retention. Is their a reasonable expectation that a prolific Nigerian filmmaker might have received coverage in his native country? Yes. Are Nigerian libraries and newspapers easily available to most editors of the English Wikipedia? Nope. Guideline itself seems to encourage the keeping of stubs in such cases, specially as at the very least the director's work is indeed prolific, even if only in Nigeria, and it is a reasonable presumption that some sort of coverage for such a director and his films does indeed exist... even if only in the rather inaccessible Nigeria. Quite a Catch-22. While guideline grants that such acceptable cases or reasonable presumption exist, the common practice (even if contrary to guideline's encouragement toward consideration through common sense in such cases), is to toss such articles unless the difficult to access sources are immediately brought forward. What a shame. Is there an article on filmmaking in Nigeria to which this stub can be redirected or merged? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found my own answer. As the stub is currently unexpandable, but does represent the growing Cinema of Nigeria and a rather prolific director, I think it reasonable to yes, delete the current article, but to then redirect this unexpandable stub to List of Nigerian films#2003. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on the director, even though it needs to be rewritten (the other way or wording it, is repurpose and retitle the article) can write one. Since he has multiple films, he;s more likely to be notable than any one of them. I think that's more likely to lead to furture improvments than redirecting to a very general list. I point out that "one sentence long" "Come on now", and BL--when it isn't a BLP, are none of them reasons based on any policy whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A challenge? Okay. Article on Amayo Uzo Philips is under work even now. Amazingly difficult to find stuff on a Nigerian director... but I'm making headway. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's amazing that the main actor of this movie has not been mentioned in this Afd. Osita Iheme is a well-known and hugely popular actor & celebrity in Nigeria and Africa. This actor is, so to say, the Nigerian Gary Coleman, as he has a growth deficiency which gives him the appearance of a child even though he was born in 1982. It is unfortunate that there aren't many reliable verifiable sources available for this film, however the suggestion to place an entry of this film into the List of Nigerian films is not the solution as WP:STAND and "Wikipedia:Write the Article First" stipulate. The article of the filmmaker as found in the sandbox posses another issue as some of the sources are not reliable sources. odili.net and nigeriafilms.com do not fulfill Wikipedia's guideline definition of a reliable source (e.g. fact checking, analyzing legal issues, scrutinizing the writing, accuracy, editorial oversight etc.) and any information taken from these sources, especially for a BLP article, should be avoided. Amsaim (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... that's why it's in a sandbox and under work. HOWEVER, much of the biographical information IS from what appears to be a decent set of sources... Thisday, The Sun, and Modern Ghana, with a special nod toward the full-length and in-depth article about the director I found in Thisday. As the director does have significant coverage, and his notability is not dependent upon the snippets from Nigeria Film, I think we can all agree that finding online Nigerian sources is problematic at best and Wikipedia understands and makes allowances for such. Nothing libelous will be in that article when/if it hits mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added three refs and expanded it. Another depressing AfD, with the occasional injection of asinine comments. Apart from spotting that the article at present was unsourced, did the nom do any work whatsoever to check if it could be sourceable, per WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT? Never been there, and no plans of going, but Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, and the eighth most populous country in the world, with a huge entertainment industry. Nigeria is infamous for its Gini coefficient and not exactly famous for widespread Internet access. They don't speak English you know, so the odds of finding a sizeable Google footprint in English to satisfy WP:FILM are of course slim, and really, really ought to be considered in the deletion rationale, in particular when, as in this case, there is no problem with verifiability. This type of nom lends itself to WP:BIAS problems. The !votes above, that it should be deleted for BLP reasons, for being a one-sentence stub, and "come-on" are downright ludicrous. Laurels to Schmidt for defending the Wiki-spirit, where do you find the energy?. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2010 (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.