Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/The Seventh Brother

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you have not already done so, please click here and add {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/The Seventh Brother}} at the top of the box. Thank you.
Click here to return to the main RfD page.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete.

The Seventh Brother

The Seventh Brother (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Ryulong (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

This article is about a film that only exists.: It does not meet any sort of notability criteria. It does not show up in Google News except for one time which is just a film release listing. No one has written about the movie other than a cross-wiki vandal who is known on the Simple English Wikipedia as the Disney Anon.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Strong Keep - There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. Go and find something better to do. Gob lin 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Keep I've looked at the article, they don't put movies on the Internet Movie Database for non-notable things. It also has a couple of notable references too, and vandals do at some stage write legit articles, where it might not be known to other people in other countries. Google news is just a news search, one listing from that is good enough to confirm sources from the article. иιƒкч ? 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep. Every film doesn't have to show up in Google News. -- Mercy (☎|✍) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or make new article e.g. List of non-notable movies, and move it there, shorted to max. 1.000 chars. On imdb there are lot of movies that are not notable by any concern. If somebody haven't found one, that doesn't mean none exists. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User has only 5 edits. Shappy ^talk`
SpeedyGonsales appears to be a long term user of ENWP rather than SEWP, and is an administrator at HRWP.-Ryulong (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. IMDb and the like are not reliable sources. Algébrico (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While article is by Bambifan, still should be kept. Pmlin editor I ♥ Gobby! 18:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into a new list. This is not a matter of who creates it, but its content and notability. Yes, it is non-notable, but certainly can be included in a list.-- Tdxi ang 06:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Allmovie is very reliable as a source and proves a certain relevance. Also note this movie is from 1995 (at that time there was not a lot of internet resulting in a quiet poor amount of online sources. IMDB mentions it. It's Hungarian, so from US POV perhaps not relevant or prominent, but from Eastern Europe POV pretty relevant. How many Hu animations do you have here for instance? 94.210.224.185 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above "keep" comments. User:94.210.224.185 may be interested in knowing that it was distributed in the U.S. as well by the fairly prolific Feature Films for Families. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those that are voting keep, I'd like to point out that nearly every film is listed in IMDB. There is no coverage on this film in any English language website, and there is nothing that can be said other than a lengthy plot summary. This "Feature Films for Families" thing does not really appear to be notable itself. It just seems to be a film distributor who picks out random films to sell them to the US. There are only four films on the English Wikipedia that list this as the distributor. This film is only notable within the nation it was created and there's not much coverage on it other than what was produced by the Disney ANon on all of the projects. No one has ever thought about making this page until the Disney Anon made it on all the Wikipedias it is on right now. He even made the page at the Hungarian Wikipedia. No one cares about the film enough to cover it other than this one person who obsessed over it.Ryulong (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we were to grant your argument that it is "only notable within the nation it was created", that would still meet notability requirements... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we have any evidence that it is notable anywhere? The only thing I have been told is that they show it in Hungary every year, but that was by a sysop at hu:.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per a non-convincing nomination, and a non-convincing nominator. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 12:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly focus on content rather than people? Thank you fr33kman ^talk 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misunderstood. 'an un-convincing nominator'= He's isn't convincing me with his answers to other people. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. Your wording certainly implied something different. fr33kman ^talk 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence meant. Apologies to Ryulong if you took my comment badly. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable. Exert 02:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 'Notable-ish'. —MC8 (b · t) 22:55, Sunday July 26 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete - The German refs (4 and 5) aren't reliable sources. Advertisment and the content looks like an other movie... The other references are IMDb sites, which list all notable and not-notable movies. Another ref: google translater... no comments. Further more, the article seems not-notable enough to me. Barras (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Administrator note: This page technically meets the quick deletion criteria since there is no particular assertion (statement) of how this subject/movie is notable. I've reversed the deletion... since the community is currently discussing the article and it has such a large editing history. ~~I'm neutral on the subject, however.~~ NonvocalScream (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, so I have a demonstrated COI. I won't be closing the RFD, and still remain neutral on this discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Delete. None of the keep voters actually show any real argument for keeping this. Yes, it exists on IMDB, but so does basically every single film ever publicly released. As the delete voters say, there is no real coverage of it anywhere, and just because something exists, doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. It has to show notability, which this simply does not. Majorly talk 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.