Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And the Violins Stopped Playing

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 speedy keep. AfD withdrawn by nominator; only delete !vote came from a sockpuppet account that has been blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Violins Stopped Playing

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. I cannot find any sources on this movie. If anyone can find some good sources, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Transcendence (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator since notability has been established per below. I would close this, but there has been a delete vote. Transcendence (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ only source given is Imdb, which can't count.--TV Man 13 23:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP per WP:NRVE. While I can appreciate the nominator being concerned with (then) current state or sourcing, there are plenty of English language sources available... and more, this film also has a great deal of Polish language coverage under its original title. The article could benefit from editorial attention, but deleting notable topics for lacking a little actual attention does not improve the project. WP:PRESERVE, WP:SOFIXIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was not established nor was it obvious. In response to "The article could benefit from editorial attention, but deleting notable topics for lacking a little actual attention does not improve the project.", 'as I stated already, I looked for sources and was unable to find any.

With regards to the sources you added, all of your English sources except for the first one are not reliable sources or are about the book and not the movie.

Source #2 "And the Violins Stopped Playing: A Story of the Gypsy Holocaust" This is the book itself. This is not about the movie, furthermore, it's not independent of the subject matter here since the movie is based on the book.
Source #3 "Holocaust books tell horrors of concentration camps". The Advocate. This is also about the book, not the movie.
Source #4 "And the Violins Stopped Playing details". The New York Times. I believe this falls under the following from WP:MOVIE, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database"
Source #5 "About the film, DVD". Allrovi. Same as source #4.
However all of this is moot since the Polish sources establish notability per WP:MOVIE, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." With that, I'll be withdrawing my nomination. Transcendence (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that any information in an article must be verifiable in a reliable sources (such as The New York Times or The Advocate) and that such verifibility need not itself be significant coverage? The terms are related but not interchangeable. Thankfully, the Polish language sources offer more than do the English language ones and I very much wish to thank you for the withdrawal. And no... I am not at all through with work on the article. Hint: Look at the English and Polish "Find sources" search results under "Google books" and "Google scholar". As I said below... more to do. Thank you for bringing to AFD... resulting it it finally getting some attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. You're talking about verifiability (which I don't know what that has to do with the notability of the article which is the focus of the AfD), whereas I'm talking about notability. Verifiable sources do not establish notability. As noted in WP:MOVIE, synopsis sources don't confer notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources do. Transcendence (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I sense some sort of hostility or annoyance coming from you so, we should just leave it at that. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Though AFD is not meant to force improvement, such improvement is undergoing anyways. As it is always better to support opinion with action, HERE is the unsourced version as nominated and HERE is the article as of 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC). More to do... but do-able... and not a reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and close/withdraw the nom please. At this point the notability is clearly established.Volunteer Marek 12:35, 16 May 2013 (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.