Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sittwe (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sittwe (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)

I couldn't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and there's no evidence of meeting WP:NFILM. The only claim of notability is winning an award at a film festival, but the award alone isn't sufficiently significant or widely recognized to automatically confer notability. GSS ^💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes GNG. I added a few sources. Furthermore, nominated for deletion a mere 48 minutes after creation. this is extremely bad form IMO. Give the process a chance. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've referenced some offline sources that may not be readily accessible. Could you please elaborate on how these sources satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG? Additionally, could you provide further details regarding these sources? GSS ^💬 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not your research assistant.~~ These are RS and they support the facts cited to them. They're online although paywalled and I don't know how to link to them effectively or I would have. Central and Adams (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, there's no need to be rude. I didn't ask you to be my 'research assistant'. You cited offline sources without direct links to them, and I just wanted to understand how these sources satisfy the criteria of GNG. I've attempted to search for the titles of these sources but couldn't find anything online, let alone access their content. Hopefully, someone else can locate them and ascertain if they provide the independent and in-depth coverage required by GNG. GSS ^💬 17:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an article in The Boston Globe: "When nationalism goes awry". It's got two paragraphs on the documentary. Toughpigs (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Islam. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Irrawaddy source discussing its banning, backed with the sources already in the article, seem to meet both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG (and it seems to have been heavily shown at universities and otherwise discussed by academics which would support notability using the same sort of argument in WP:TEXTBOOKS). In addition to the sources originally in/added to the article/mentioned there's Rakhine Conflict Primarily Political, Not Religious, Seminar Told has coverage of both the release and the documentary and it's used as an example/reference point in The Rohingya Crisis. As a procedural note, I think waiting longer before AfD'ing this would have been preferable. And if this was done as part of NPP, the NPP guidelines are pretty clear to wait at least an hour before nominating for deletion in most cases WP:NPPHOUR. If there's any particular source the nom (or anyone) wants help accessing, saying which one(s) is helpful. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've been waiting for nearly an hour, just short by 10 minutes. There hasn't been any activity on the page since it was posted. While I'm somewhat convinced by the sources, I would appreciate it if someone could provide more detailed articles. The current ones only offer brief paragraphs and lack the depth required for the documentary. Thank you. GSS ^💬 18:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Irrawaddy article definitely meets WP:GNG as the primary topic of the article and discuss it beyond routine coverage, though I know WP:NFILM is a bit stricter and not in my area of expertise. From my cursory glance, the award (backed up by the Irrawaddy source) is one of the conditions for NFILM and I think i can meet the rest too with some of the following

Another source I found that I don't personally have access to from the Economist that discusses in some detail.There is this Stanford university screening with a panel discussion which may satisfy the university condition. There is also this VoA newscast about the film that I will add relevant info from to the article in about an hour when I can listen to the audio to translate (letting yall know since there seems to be some sort of time budget going on in this AfD)

I agree it would be nice for the author to be more specific with the sources cited like the two Mizzima articles I can't locate either. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EmeraldRange: regarding the time budget — this AfD discussion will be open for 7 days, unless the nominator withdraws it. You've got some time to improve the article, and thank you for doing that. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added some information now, but half of the cast is interviews with the directors, so I don't think it counts as significant secondary coverage for GNG, but the other sources already shows that it meets GNG. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here's the archived version of the Economist article that EmeraldRange pointed out. It's eight paragraphs specifically about Sittwe and another documentary, evaluating them in context with contemporary events. This clearly meets GNG. Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the newly cited sources, I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Thank you for including these additional sources. GSS ^💬 04:20, 27 February 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.