Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutiny of Colours

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. Dismissing Hhplactube's comment as "per X" and by a very new account. Sandstein 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mutiny of Colours

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

Film that I can't find much notability for as well as a major COI given the people who have made the article are the producer and the writers names. Wgolf (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILMS Flat Out let's discuss it 12:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Three of the items in the "further reading" section seem to me to be reliable, and together establish notability. It does need inline referencing, and COI is a potential problem. - ColinFine-(talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks ColinFine. I have reviewed further reading - londsonstreetdesign doesn't seem reliable as articles are self submitted and there's no editorial oversight, rosewatersaffron is a passing mention only, this release brief looks OK but I don't think the depth of coverage exists to pass NFILMS Flat Out let's discuss it 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It appears the page you linked is one where instructions are offered on how an artist may submit images of their street art works: "To make the ADMINs job slightly easier to manage we will need certain details sent along with the images.". Their about us page appears to speak toward editorial oversight by founders Wayne Anthony and Cyrus Sirius Bozorgmehr. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per colinfine Hhplactube (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More likely delete - Multiple searches found the same links listed here and I don't think they appear to be significant, my search found one different link here (also German). The article isn't terrible but the sources could be better (but I suppose it is an independent foreign film). SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 23 April 2015 (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.