Le Mythe de la 5ème île: The French article has only 1 source too.  LibStar ( talk ) 04:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rarher keep .  Noted for its ’deconstructionist’ approach of the reality of  Comoros in this article , that has a much more developped assessment of the film than the source in the page.  Quoted in a book about cinema from the Réunion.  It’s 60 min long, the first of this filmmaker and he repeatedly refers to it in interviews, as one would expect.  It was  screened at the Tarifa festival and at the Moroni O Mcezo 2007 festival (where the audience is said to have disliked it or not understood it, at least, in the article mentioned above). — MY, OH, MY !  09:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep on the basis of the reasons provided by MY, OH, MY .  Has been screened at local festivals of significance.  We should be cautious about deleting articles already parsed by AfD in this manner Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consensus can change plus notability is more strict in WP than 11 years ago at the time of the last AfD.  LibStar ( talk ) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Disagree that the notability shifts affect this article, given the apparent local cultural significance demonstrated by local festival viewings.  Notability has been demonstrated previously, and once notable always notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] once notable always notable absolutely false.  There are some articles that have survived an AfD in the past, that have been deleted in a subsequent AfD.  If what you say is true, Wikipedia would not allow renominations for AfD.  LibStar ( talk ) 07:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Once notable always notable.  See: WP:NTEMP The idea of 'once notable always notable' is entirely compatible with AfD being re-opened.  "from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion , or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable"  I don't think the above is met here.  I think this film being screened at local festivals established its notability years ago; and thus we should regard the film as continuing to have notability now.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 07:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There are no French sources for the film that I can find, the FR wiki article is using the same single ref as here.  It may have been notable, but isn't currently.  Lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  More opinions are welcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 04:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of sources, fails WP:NFILM Donald D23 talk to me 21:56, 1 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete