Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debris documentar

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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debris documentar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG). I read German and looked for German sources as well. All coverage is either passing mentions or in self-published sources such as blogs. The one cited source, heise.de, does not even mention the film. Because the content is not verifiable in reliable sources, a merger to the director also seems inappropriate. Sandstein 12:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-à-vis notability/importance over there, plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. I cited two sources in my article (not including five external links to film databases), not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. If it must be deleted and merged, may I suggest it be merged with Melancholie der Engel, the film which it comments on?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously speedy deleted for using "incredibly graphic detail of cannibalistic corpse rape". After a deletion review which established this was not grounds for deletion, the article was restored. I don't think arguing that it is on another wiki has any great validity, or arguing it has no sources has any validity. It has two sources, and the de-wiki's notability guidelines are different. User:Aguyintobooks 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sandstein. If he was unable to find sourcing in either language that meets RS standards. WP:DEL7 applies. I can't find English sourcing to meet our inclusion standards myself, and I'll take his word on the German. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please note the book I referenced above, cited in the article. I do not understand why people here continue to ignore the fact that I cited it, even though I mentioned it several times now. Another editor made it more clear now.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the analysis below as to the reliability of the sourcing. This is still in WP:DEL7 territory. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Marginally notable. In passing, I note that the German Wikipedia is more stringent on sourcing than the English Wikipedia. In any event, the content can (and should) survive in the director's and/or the other film's article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

79.183.203.120 As a matter of formatting, you added the article as "Further reading." I put it in as a source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for that, as, maybe, now, some people will actually notice that I cited two sources, not one, and, that one of them is a book discussing the film at length.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail to meet (WP:GNG) Samat lib (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the book I mentioned earlier? I changed the link at the article now to Google Books so that people could see for themselves.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book has two pages dedicated to it, but I have no idea what it says. the other source is awkward because it does not seem to mention the film by the title of the article, autotranslate makes the article incomprehensible. I basically have no clue what it say either. User:Aguyintobooks 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus two more pages about Reise nach Agatis (remember, the article deals with it, too) and a few briefer mentions elsewhere. I cited the German article not because it deals with the film (it does not) but, rather, to have a reference for the fact that Dora worked as an assistant for Lommel. I do not speak French and added the book only because I found it and, given that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, thought it was a notable/reliable source: a French speaker can, surely, come and assist.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book source Les dossiers Sadique-master Dissection du cinéma underground extrême mentioned above seems like borderline self-published. Obscure author, selling on Amazon as an e-book or a paperback for nearly US$100 isn't something I'd consider "mainstream reliable", and the problem with books is that the author can write anything desired without fact checking or accuracy, and still be published. So I'd say this is a very weak source in comparison to something in periodically published media. The article source mentioned above doesn't deal with the film, either. Just because something exists on another language Wikipedia doesn't mean it meets the inclusion criteria of the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing I can say, again, is that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, so, it is probably not self-published (also, Amazon.fr sells the paperback for EUR 32,00 and the Kindle for EUR 16,00, the equivalents of c. 38 and 19 USD, respectively, according to XE.com, and, this is also the price at the publisher's site, so, I am not sure how you got to the $100 figure). Again, if it must be deleted, consider merging it, as I suggested above, with the MdE article: I am willing to accept that as a solution, given how the forming consensus here seems to support deletion. FWIW, let me add, again, that the article passed AfC.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got the $100 figure from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XQHG8SR/ (it's $92 now, I recall it was higher earlier). Also I'm not opposed to a merge or redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails FILM as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would, as a way to salvage the article, encourage people, also, to look for sources dealing with Reise nach Agatis, though, I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited).--79.183.203.120 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for "Debris documentar" as well as "Reise nach Agatis" and have obviously found nothing,

"I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited)" - If you haven't found any reliable sources yourself then in short you're wasting your time here replying to everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I have not found any sources: I think the book is good enough, I simply meant I have not found any good sources except for that one. People here either ignore the fact I cited the book (and, continue to claim I cited nothing), or, claim it is not good enough, a claim I contested earlier. Worth seeing if there might be something under Voyage to Agatis, the film's official English title.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one book source does not meet GNG; the German article also has no sources to support this one's notability. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to add that this editor posted extremely hostile comments about me wrt another issue. I have seen plenty of articles here, on a wide variety of issues, with only one book source (plus, many with barely any sources at all). Nevertheless, seeing as I have no way of convincing you and you do not find any of this convincing, feel free to delete the article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WHYN you need at a bare minimum 2 significant references, three is preferred, I can't see this swinging to keep at this point. However merging most the content into Melancholie der Engel is reasonable. You could boldly do this, but don't take over the article! Dysklyver 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hoping they will at least allow this to stay. You can delete the article now. PS: I have a dynamic IP.--109.65.93.6 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming this will be deleted tomorrow?--109.65.93.6 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (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.