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. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability User234 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I've now sourced most of them too. Google is your friend. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't add part of the criteria: "at least five years after initial release.". Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full text is The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - I read that as the commerical re-release after 5 years OR screened in a festival. Find me one film that was screened at a festival and then screened again at another festival 5 years later. Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist that sentence around; its very clear: A) film is given a commercial re-release, OR B) screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. User234 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've read it wrong, otherwise no-one could create an article for a 2009 film until 2014. Lugnuts (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is if you base notability only on No. 2. What if notability is established outright by No. 1 or No. 3? You can write an article for a 2009 article right here, right now if that's the case. Problem is, you focus only on No. 2, trying to justify the existence of this Boy article on that sole line (and twisting it at that) for your benefit. User234 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly twisting it. The policy asks for one of the points, not x AND y. Your original comment of "no evidence of notability" just simply isn't true, as I've already proven. There's also the blurb on the film notability page that reads "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is covered in the number of refs I've added around screening and censorship.Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2009 (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.