Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six Reasons Why (2nd nomination)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six Reasons Why (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 9 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The notability hasn't changed since it was deleted in the 2008 AfD. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability. Balle010 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they need to show markers of significance, such as major film awards and/or enough attention from film critics to clear WP:GNG. But there's no such claim being made here, this is written more like an advertisement for the film than a neutral encyclopedia article (conflict of interest likely, as the article was created by a user named "ImageEnt" and has subsequently been heavily edited by a user named "MattCampagna"), and even on a ProQuest search for decade-old coverage that might not have Googled, I still found only a bunch of smalltown community hyperlocals reprinting the exact same wire service article on the same day (thus combining into one data point, not several) and absolutely nothing from major media. That's not good enough.
  I should also note that both Matt and Jeff Campagna also had advertorialized autobiographical articles, with weak sourcing and no notability claim stronger than the existence of this film — see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Campagna (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Campagna. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 14 September 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.