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.
Keep per GNG. The film's history, including its premiere at international film festivals, story, and information about its direction, are all available online. Plenty of sources exist. Shahid • Talk2me 13:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: see References section please. All reliable sources and not just passing mentions. Shahid • Talk2me 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the AfD nomination...these are all about the director and not the film itself. We need reviews. DonaldD23talk to me 18:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: No, they're about the film, otherwise I wouldn't know what the film is about. Reviews are important for WP:NFLIM, but this article has WP:GNG going for it. Shahid • Talk2me 19:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad film title for SEO - there are any number of 'Somedays' out there dating back to 1935. Many are notable. This one - a short - isn't. Screening at an international film festival most certainly isn't notability - we are guided by WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, neither of which this film passes. Not today, not someday, not anyday. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I see such reasoning, namely the film's title is problematic. We are guided by WP:GNG and that's why the article is notable. Shahid • Talk2me 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the title complaint observation or WP:SEO is a bit strange, IMHO Alexandermcnabb raises IMHO a valid point that the film festivals are minor, which you fail to address. Many thanks! VickKiang(talk) 05:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was merely an observation rather than a complaint... there are a number of other films called 'Someday', so that's a strange choice for a film title in today's world. Purely observation, by no means an assertion that in someway this violates WP policy or standards. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: Yeah, I agree. Going to go off-topic here about my subjective POV- the film's title is mundane and dull, and my BEFORE search found lots of films with the same title, making searching difficult, so I get what you are saying (has to add 2021 short/2021 film) ... of course this has nothing to do with AfDs and I can see someone mistaking that as part of a rationale but indeed an interesting observation. VickKiang(talk) 05:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be adequately sourced and meet guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All citations are about the director and not the film. How is that adequately sourced? DonaldD23talk to me 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Ref no. 6: "Shefali Shah's directorial debut Someday to be screened at the 18th Indian Film Festival Stuttgart" - it's about the film. Obviously when sources provide information about films, their director is mentioned because they are the presentor of their work. Shahid • Talk2me 19:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Sourcing on the director is insufficient, ref 6 is a routine announcement, only describing the official logline (sorry, but that's what the ref says) and then a quote by Shah. Then this ref- a minor announcement on a film festival selection, nowhere near passing WP:NFILM's major award criteria, and then a plot overview (possibly an analysis but nowhere near SIGCOV). Per WP:GNG, Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. IMHO this falls into announcements columns, though it's perfectly reasonable if you disagree. My WP:BEFORE search found this, a similar routine story with almost the same quotes. Shshshsh, we've disagreed in the past, I appreciate your efforts in content creation and saving articles from AfD, and apologies that I have to vote delete for an article you created, if you could demonstrate more refs please add them here, but any more comments without adding refs probably won't persuade me to change my vote, so let's respectfully disagree. (Another minor note: I've procedurally marked this as reviewed still during NPP as it's already in AfD, but that doesn't reflect that I would like to keep the article). Many thanks! Update: Two editors have been stating that Cinestaan is RS. IMO it's debatable that it's a reliable source, but it definitely passes the independent, secondary, and significant coverage requirements. Therefore, generously there is one source counting towards GNG or NFILM criteria 1. IMHO the new sources added, 1, 2, 3, still mainly cover the plot, information on the director, and general info on the award. However, some editors could reasonably view some of these new pieces as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, I'm at Weak Delete to Neutral. VickKiang(talk) 21:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: It's not a minor announcement actually - the article provides both an announcement and infomration about the film. It's a substantial article. But we're not going to see eye the eye so let's save ourselves the time to argue. Shahid • Talk2me 07:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your last sentence- let's respectfully disagree and thanks! VickKiang(talk) 07:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable short film. Found a review here. DareshMohan (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: Thank you for the reply, I've started a RSN discussion. Many thanks! VickKiang(talk) 02:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: Thanks so much for finding this review. I think even if the source was not the most reliable source for contentious claims, it'd still be perfect for film reviews and opinion pieces and they have proper attribution. I should note again that this source notwithstnading, the page meets WP:GNG as there are many sources which provide information about this film. I forgot to mention I put in some more effort to add more sources. Shahid • Talk2me 09:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relist. Opinion seems evenly split on whether or not this film can be considered notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 19:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This just barely scrapes by for me. But with the new source, I think it meets our criteria. -- Mike🗩 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough with sufficient RS coverage. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New sources indicate enough notability to meet criteria here. Joyous! | Talk 20:57, 3 November 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.