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.
Does not meet
WP:NFILM or
WP:GNG, have been unable to find significant coverage outside the
smh review included in the article (it is included in
IMDBhere), for example, a search under various permutations at the
NFSA site (
such as "Romilly Cavan") and the
ABC (
like this) brings up nothing, would suggest that a mention at the writer's wikiarticle is probably enough but unfortunately Romilly Cavan does not have a lesson (although she may be notable?). Also, there is no mention at
Ken Hannam, the director's article.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this. There is one good source in the article, but making a film notable just because it exists requires more than just one source — and as I don't have any viable access to databases of Australian media coverage from the 1960s, I cannot speak to whether any other coverage exists to salvage it with. But we don't keep inadequately sourced articles about films that haven't been properly shown to clear
WP:NFILM just because we assume that better notability-building sources might exist — we keep such articles only if better notability-building sources are shown to exist. So if somebody with better access than I've got to Australian newspaper archives can find sufficient sourcing, that would change things — but until that happens, one source isn't enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
There is also the one I found above. But that would make only two reasonable references. So, I still think not quite enough yet. (Re Aussie newspapers. You should be able to access
TROVE - which for Aussie content should be a critical part of BEFORE).
Aoziwe (
talk)
22:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Just conservative I suppose. While I do like to keep articles, or at least content, if at all possible, I just like to feel comfortable that they will not come back again and again, which some seem to. (Sorry was working on the post below before I saw your post here.)
Aoziwe (
talk)
12:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Weakish keep Now that we have two relatively solid independent sources, and they are on-line, for something that pre-dates the WWW by decades is an indicator of sufficient notability to my mind. I would be much happier if we could find a third one.
Aoziwe (
talk)
12:34, 15 January 2020 (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.