Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamula (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 keep. The article needs a lot of work, but verifiable sources are available. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamula (film)[edit]

[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)

Notability is not evident, does not meet WP:NF; rejected from publication from draft space at Draft:Mamula (film), but AFC process was inappropriately circumvented BOVINEBOY2008 21:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet verifiability standards. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily meets notability requirements. The movie has received a ton of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

It had a mainstream cinema distribution in Serbia and Montenegro17 15 23 and aired on Serbia's public broadcaster.14 Zvonko (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am glad this was added to the laundry list above. I thought the long list of sources might be a horrible attempt at refbombing by Zvonko. when I see this that only has Dragan Bjelogrlic for the film "Montevideo, see you" 10 million and Milan Todorovic for "Mamula" 4,800,000 dinars. When I assume on good faith that there is "a ton of coverage in reliable sources", I am not impressed with some very passing mention of a movie receiving financing on a site that gives more prominence to the lingerie ad and cost to buy. I had no desire to dig through more junk in hopes of finding something. Since IMDb is not a reliable source and Rotten Tomatoes only provides A carefree Mediterranean vacation turns into a fight for survival when two women discover a deadly mermaid's watery lair beneath an abandoned military fortress., that is in the "External links" section, maybe someone would like to add a HEY and provide some actual sourcing. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reviews in reliable sources for horror films here and here, select Nymph from the top menu among others so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no source mentioned in the article, but after providing sources by User:Zvonko, the film passes WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 11:04, 27 April 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.