Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We'll Meet Again (2002 film) - Wikipedia
- 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 no consensus. North America1000 17:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll Meet Again (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found this one paragraph review. At first I thought that this review was reliable, but it's a self-published website. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Great example for why I think WP:NF should be itself deleted (see option 3 here). There are dozens of pages that reference this movie[1], including TV Guide. Plenty to make it likely for users to search for information about it. Indeed, page views average at about 5 per day[2]. If people are looking for it we should have an article about it. That’s all that should matter. Not all the contrived criteria at WP:NF. —-В²C ☎ 05:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how Wikipedia works. Mlb96 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Feels like another dismissive AfD; MHC was notable enough for her books, and definitely for these films, including this one. We've got enough for an article, plenty of WLH links in, and there much fewer TV films in general in 2002, so it meets WP:N for me by that standard (especially as we allow any direct-to-Tubi action dreck these days that somehow passed N because it qualified for Czech-Romanian tax credits). Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses: Born2cycle Mrschimpf Blatantly ignoring notability guidelines will not save the article from deletion due to the closing admin having to take guideline-based and policy-based reasons into account. That is how AfDs have always worked and both of you should know this. I'm amazed that an editor who has been on Wikipedia for 16 years would say that say that what links here counts towards notability among the other things. SL93 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SL93, evolution applies to decision-making on WP and is often fueled by WP:IAR. In my opinion notability and Afd have a lot of room for improvement. I believe any topic for which sufficient information exists to make it something likely for users to look up should have some coverage on WP. WP should be the reference to whatever information there is on a topic, even if the only reliable information we have is, for a film, just the basic facts (name, date, cast). I suggest you ask these questions, which underlie IAR: How is the encyclopedia improved if this article is removed? How is it not better for users if it remains? The answers to those questions should be the overarching guideline, and if our formal guidelines tell us to do otherwise, that’s solid grounds to change them rather than follow them. Let’s not be lemmings. We can do better. Much better. —В²C ☎ 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would like to change our notability rules, you are welcome to try. However, this is not the correct forum for that. The closing admin will likely ignore everything you've written. Mlb96 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My stake in this is that I've been seeing a lot of films meant for women or families (mainly Hallmark Channel and Lifetime films) getting deleted for no other reason than they don't meet WP:N because 'there's not enough coverage' out there (there is, it just seems that these nominators don't want the fact they're searching about a Hallmark/Lifetime film in their browser history), when somehow we're allowing low-sourced direct-to-video films only existing because Bruce Willis has bills to pay and states have tax credits like this get articles only because Bruce Willis is in it. This is an acceptable, bog-standard article to me. It aired on a national network. It was based on a popular book. It has name actors doing original stuff. That's what hits N to me, not just that it has to hit a certain reader's imagined standards. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Except those are your own personal standards of what is notable. WP:N isn't backed up. Maybe try changing notability for films first because an AfD discussion really isn't the place for that. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mlb96, SL93, trying to change the guideline first requires facing a chicken-egg problem. We need to first establish consensus opposition to the status quo at the article level as basis to change the relevant policy. That’s why Arguing a policy or guideline needs to change first when opposing a proposal that is based on ignoring that policy/guideline per IAR or is a form of status quo stonewalling. The practical reality is you can’t change the guideline first. —В²C ☎ 06:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think continuing this discussion here will not be productive. I was going to suggest a RfC before seeing that you brought up the current one at WP:FILMS. Discussion should continue there. The outcome of this AfD is independent of the current RfC. – The Grid (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My stake in this is that I've been seeing a lot of films meant for women or families (mainly Hallmark Channel and Lifetime films) getting deleted for no other reason than they don't meet WP:N because 'there's not enough coverage' out there (there is, it just seems that these nominators don't want the fact they're searching about a Hallmark/Lifetime film in their browser history), when somehow we're allowing low-sourced direct-to-video films only existing because Bruce Willis has bills to pay and states have tax credits like this get articles only because Bruce Willis is in it. This is an acceptable, bog-standard article to me. It aired on a national network. It was based on a popular book. It has name actors doing original stuff. That's what hits N to me, not just that it has to hit a certain reader's imagined standards. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would like to change our notability rules, you are welcome to try. However, this is not the correct forum for that. The closing admin will likely ignore everything you've written. Mlb96 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SL93, evolution applies to decision-making on WP and is often fueled by WP:IAR. In my opinion notability and Afd have a lot of room for improvement. I believe any topic for which sufficient information exists to make it something likely for users to look up should have some coverage on WP. WP should be the reference to whatever information there is on a topic, even if the only reliable information we have is, for a film, just the basic facts (name, date, cast). I suggest you ask these questions, which underlie IAR: How is the encyclopedia improved if this article is removed? How is it not better for users if it remains? The answers to those questions should be the overarching guideline, and if our formal guidelines tell us to do otherwise, that’s solid grounds to change them rather than follow them. Let’s not be lemmings. We can do better. Much better. —В²C ☎ 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think that a good compromise here would be to create an article on the book (a search shows that the book would likely pass notability guidelines) and have a section about the film. What I'm personally running into issue-wise is that I can't really find many in-depth sources for the film. Even Newspapers.com doesn't seem to have anything for the film beyond routine listings, which is honestly kind of surprising. Films based on books by very well known authors tend to gain at least a little publicity. I figure that if sources for the film can't be found we could redirect this to the book article with history, that way if/when the sources are found we can restore the article. I'm going to try looking a little harder today for sourcing and also try to make the book article, so here's hoping. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to We'll_Meet_Again_(novel)#Film_adaptation with history. There's not really enough out there that I can find to establish independent notability, but there is definite notability for the book. I included a section in the book's article that covers the movie, so until/if more sources can be found this will certainly work as a good compromise. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer leaving the stub as-is, because that encourages expansion by others, but as long as readers can find the verifiable information that exists for a given topic including a film in a section of another article, the main requirement is met. —В²C ☎ 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were to be expanded, reliable, independent sources would have to be used. The question is, where are the reliable, independent sources? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t know. Apparently not on the internet. Maybe in a book or magazine? But we know the film exists (I started watching it on YouTube) and people do look for it. So I think we should provide as much information as we can, even if it’s not from the best sources, for now. —В²C ☎ 18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were to be expanded, reliable, independent sources would have to be used. The question is, where are the reliable, independent sources? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer leaving the stub as-is, because that encourages expansion by others, but as long as readers can find the verifiable information that exists for a given topic including a film in a section of another article, the main requirement is met. —В²C ☎ 16:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect because a suitable target exists and subject does not otherwise appear to meet GNG. "the reasons of those who want this article kept" are nothing more than special pleading and personal opinion about what makes a film notable (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSIMPORTANT), disregarding entirely the practical aspect that we need good sources – not reviews on websites lacking reliability – to write an article. IAR is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card (just as jury nullification is rightly both a valid AND an uncommon outcome), and here it would not improve the encyclopedia, because a mere database listing (what this is, and seemingly what it is likely to remain due to the lack of proper sources) does not improve the encyclopedia (WP:NOTDATABASE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepSee WP:NF. PreppyElephant (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't meet WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2021 (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.