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)

Babina (film) (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)

Complete failure to satisfy

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

talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk

)

• 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
  ]

@

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

]

• 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
  talk) 07:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also, a quick note on "notability is not inherited": this is a film, not an

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:

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]

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
  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.