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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lionshare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

2nd Afd, first resulted in no consensus. Non-notable film, fails WP:MOVIE, no V/RS listed. GregJackP (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Absolutely no reason to delete this, there are numerous reliable sources listed in the first AfD.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - where? #1 - Rougecinema is a user written site, not a reliable source. #2 - Critic's Word is a blog, not reliable. #3 - The Independent Critic is a blog, not reliable. #4 - Torrent Freak, blog, not reliable. #5 - FrostClick, blog, not reliable. GHits/GNews have not turned up any reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Being a blog does not automatically disqualify a source as unreliable. And I think the IMDB page is quite reliable.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Read WP:RS. Blogs are not reliable per the standards, with very limited exceptions. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then this is one of those exceptions. The sources listed are critical reviews posted on movie review sites in a professional capacity.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:MOVIE all sources are trivial. Please read the guideline which excludes: "Trivial coverage, such as 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" Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But it is listed in the IMDB, and those reviews do provide critical commentary.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline exludes IMBD as a notability source. Read the guideline and see if you can find some souces to support notability. I can not. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NF - IMDb is specifically excluded from reliable sources. GregJackP (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your phrasing on the IMDB, but that doesn't obviate the fact that the sources in the article provide critical commentary on the film and aren't trivial.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which doesn't change the fact that you need to show notability by verifiable and reliable sources. I can't find any, and I've looked. GregJackP (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my earlier comment; the sources in the article do meet the criteria of reliability.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article meets the criteria of WP:NF by being "featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema" and "'taught' as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program" based on 'The Lionshare' is academic which is reliable per WP:SELFPUB.
  --Gyrobo (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: This film has been reviewed by someone who is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:RS).
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an award-winning indie film reviewed/discussed by several reliable sources. Sure, the article may need more sourcing and work, but a poorly-written or incomplete article does not make the subject non-notable. I'm going to take a look and see if I can fix up the article a bit, hopefully that will help. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per my !vote in the first AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources. Reviews given do not appear to be from reliable sources.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't see any reason for deletion of this article. IMDB is a reliable source. bcartolo (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to read WP:NF, IMDB is not so reliable, and as it's a database it cannot be used to establish notability (it is considered trivial coverage).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:MOVIE as significant reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be found for this movie. I went through three different search engines and reviewed 300 listings. IMDb seems to be its reference and not the one I would hang my article's hat for notability or sourcing on. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2010 (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.