Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Unstoppable (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Slater Jewell-Kemker as it seems no one objects to this. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Unstoppable

AfDs for this article:

[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)

First nomination ended in no consensus, but notability question has remained since December 2021. I found no evidence of this film passing WP:NFILM. Lots of awards listed, but all are small, minor awards. Not every award is notable as anyone can give out an award. Let's decide once and for all if this film should be kept and have the notability tag removed, or if it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Environment, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing here was never solid or notability-building in the first place — the strongest source is a glancing namecheck of the film's existence in a fairly short blurb about the filmmaker's participation in an event nestled inside a not-otherwise-about-her liveblog of the overall event, which isn't enough — but the first discussion ended up landing no consensus because nobody weighed in at all besides me and one other user. I do still believe it's a delete, for the record, but as the nominator the first time I'd really just be repeating myself if I exhaustively listed all the problems with each individual source, so let's just leave it at "everything I said in the first discussion still applies". Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant international coverage, in the USA, and in Australia. There's also no shortage of blurbs from renowned sources around the world, such as Variety, Al Jazeera, Toronto Star, Avanti and Marie Claire; while they don't meet GNG, does note that there's international interest. Also, why would this ever be a delete? How would it not be a redirect to Slater Jewell-Kemker? Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are all either passing mentions, or articles about the participants in the documentary...not the documentary itself. The "significant" coverage you pointed out...the CNN and Australian articles are about the director. They would help her article pass any notability question...but they do not support notability for this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then how, User:Donaldd23 could this possibly be a delete, rather than a redirect - or a merge? Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are viable options too. My point is that the film does not stand on its own and should not have its own article. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 October 2022 (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.