Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Sisters (2010 film)

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 due to lack of significant coverage failing to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Seddon ^talk 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Sisters (2010 film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - happy to change my vote if evidence comes up to the contrary but, unless there are multiple reviews or significant coverage for this film in any other way, then it doesn't meet WP:NFILM or GNG and should be deleted. I note that User:Donaldd23 did put a PROD on this but an IP removed it shortly after without comment or addressing the issues that Donald had raised. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below comment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does pass WP:NFILM or GNG, based on 8 secondary sources and articles User:Spiderone . 5.53.40.13 (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. On basis of the strength of Javan Online and JJO, which look like reputable sites offering their own independent analysis of the film, I am happy to change my vote to keep per GNG/NFILM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already includes two Persian-language reviews. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Seemorgh a reliable source? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if Seemorgh is a reliable source, that's only 1 review. There are no other reviews listed in the article and none were found in my search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:NFILM.JeepersClub (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG even if Seemorgh is considered there is only one review.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Pharaoh of the Wizards. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:46, 11 September 2021 (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.