Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden Colors

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Colors

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. No reviews in the usual places, etc. Note that there is a 2nd film called Hidden Colors, The Triumph of Melanin, which comes up in searches on "Hidden Colors". Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Triumph of Melanin is actually a sequel to HC and there's a third film in the works. Maybe we could turn this into a series page if there's enough coverage for all of them? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for sources was a little difficult because of the rather large amount of non-usable sources. However I found just enough to rationalize having an article for the series as a whole and have edited the article to cover the series. I did include the Kickstarter links, which were only there to show how the films were funded. I have no true problem with them being removed, if anyone has an issue with them. The article will undoubtedly need to be fleshed out further from the sources I added, but I pretty much just added them to have them on the page first (to show notability) and then for someone to use them to flesh out the article further sometime in the future. I'll try to get back to it if I can. In any case, the coverage is light but I think it's just enough for the series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, the first link you added states as fact that "in essence, Africans/Moors ran things globally and were VERY instrumental in establishing nations and civilizations around the world." and advertises where to buy it. The second link is about the 2nd film and is pretty similar. It's also used to back the statement "Other film topics include the scientific investigation of melanin." even though it doesn't mention Melanin, and makes the claim", we built this country and were the first inhabitants of this land." I don't think these are appropriate sources and certainly don't make the article meet our notability criteria. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about link from The Source? The second link is to the New Hampshire Register, which wasn't really sourcing anything in the second film. Now the thing about the Source is that I put it there mostly just as a placeholder because I didn't know where else to put it in the article. It was a review, but since I didn't have a review section as of yet I just kind of left it there for the time being. The Source is a legit magazine and a review from them would be usable as a RS. As far as I can tell this was done by a regular writer for the magazine, as I can't see where they do signups (ie, anyone can write anything) ala HuffPo or iCNN. I've moved the source elsewhere in the section, but I do think it's usable. As far as the first one by CBS goes, I debated about that one but it is posted on CBS and the talk show the director was on seems to be run through CBS Atlanta, so it's run through a reliable enough source. If you can show that the talk show doesn't meet guidelines, then I have no true issue with it being removed. I think that it's kind of borderline, but I think it passes RS. They do endorse the DVD, but I don't think that they'd be considered advertising or a primary source per se. It's not standard-standard in every place but it's not abnormal for someone to post a link to someone's website. Normally people just hide it a little better by linking it to someone's name when you scroll your mouse over the words. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 08:44, 12 March 2014 (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.