Arupusu monogatari Yasei: Robert Kerber ( talk ) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Setsuko Hara (she's the main actress and is on the poster and she's extremely notable, as everyone knows), if sources in Jp are not (edited: seem) enough to improve and Keep .  For information: the JpWp has no page yet but has 2 lines for the film in a list (the page about Ōizumi eiga , the short-lived production company of the film, that was later bought and merged into Toei ; it is their final production). - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 08:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC) (Note: edited July, 10 after improvements made to the page by Chamaemelum and Robert Kerber) [ reply ] The fact that a film exists, or has someone notable involved, or is mentioned in a list on WP (which is self-referential ) doesn't make the article per se notable .  A redirect could as well be made to well-known screenwriter Kaneto Shindo .  I oppose a redirect to either one.  Robert Kerber ( talk ) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have we checked for sources in the Japanese language?  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 08:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Japanese Movie Database and Kinenote are both Japanese language sources and the only reliable ones I found.  Robert Kerber ( talk ) 11:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found a decent number of additional website sources (in Japanese), albeit not great ones to your point.  However, I found many mentions of this movie in print in Japanese.  Search for the shorter name, and then combine this with a name out of the directors/actors/etc.  to narrow it down.  Doing this yields lots of information about the film, which is my reason for keep.  Print images of the film also sell for small amounts on occasion, for what it's worth as a "who cares about this" indicator.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Chamaemelum Although I still vote for a delete , in case I'm overruled: can you tell me under which title the film is listed in the majority of sources you found?  The JMDb and the poster on the MPPAJ site give the longer title, Kinenote the shorter one.  Depending on which title version is more common, the article's title and intro section should be updated.  Robert Kerber ( talk ) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The shorter title is what I found more information on.  My keep is weak; it's more like "there is a possibility of something here".  I cannot do a good job of assessing Japanese print secondary sources, and someone more well-versed in Japanese could inform us if they are in passing, notable, etc.  There were also search hits for encyclopedias of Japanese film which I couldn't read at all.  Chamaemelum ( talk ) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As an author of the article I feel I need to write something.  It does not matter to delete few articles for a good reason.  It matter to delete article with such very vague reasons!  It may became a very poisonous precedent with unexpected consequences.  Decide wisely.  I think, that all 48 films by Kaneto Shindo are notable in the same way as for example all films by Ridley Scott are considered notable.  I created number of articles like this including posters.  Poster did not just made article much more beautiful.  Posters provided much more informative and cultural insight about the film.  Unfortunately Copyright laws changed RECIPROCALLY and posters had to be deleted from Wikipedia.  It has taken me much time and effort to create article like this, because I am not Japanese speaker.  Would you be able to write and article like this without Japanese language knowledge based on Japanese sources only?  It is very unfortunate, that there are virtually no English language internet sources.  So we have to stitch to Japanese sources.  I do not see the point why the article should be deleted when I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources.  Be a bit respectful to work of other cultures and wikipedians and tolerant to articles fighting cultural WP:BIAS and keep it.  Thank you.  -- Snek01 ( talk ) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources" – A statement which I reject firmly, considering the fact that your articles have repeatedly been nominated for deletion for lack of notability, poor referencing and other reasons.  Also, the reason why I proposed this article for AfD is anything but vague.  Please stick to the facts instead of spreading polemics.  Robert Kerber ( talk ) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , I think - I don't speak Japanese, but it's easy to tell the three blue-linked sources currently in the article are all database sites which don't pass GNG.  One of them says through Google translate the movie has not been reviewed by anyone.  I cannot access the fourth source.  Granted it is an older film, but a database entry suggesting the film wasn't notable enough to be reviewed, combined with no sources which clearly pass GNG, combined with a maximum of one source that can even be assumed to pass GNG.  I just voted weak keep on a different article about an older subject in a foreign language, and I don't mind draftifying this, but the other subject clearly demonstrated there were other sources out there besides databases, and this one hasn't.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with @ SportingFlyer 's reasoning; the sources themselves can't prove the notability of the subject.  GuardianH ( talk ) 01:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  This is a lost film, and as such, I have mixed feelings about using things like online film databases as grounds for its notability or lack thereof.  There is information available, such as what the filming locations were in Gifu and who did the stunt work for Hara Setsuko, and the film has a listing in Jiji Tsushin's Eiga nenkan from 1952 (a very reliable source), but it seems like what's really needed here in order to show notability is things like box office returns and reviews from the time.  Those sorts of things are all going to be in old print sources in this case.  Notability is permanent and the film itself is likely to be notable, so I would suggest that recreation in the future is a realistic possibility here.  Dekimasu よ!  01:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article consists of a plot one liner and nothing else.  Nothing significant in article.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Actually, I consider myself to be more an inclusionist than deletionist – I even had an argument once with a user who proposed the deletion of an article of mine on a documentary film about an important experimental music group (Throbbing Gristle) which had played several festivals and was aired on television.  What I see here is a film which is not only lost, but seemingly had no impact to speak of during its initial run (i.e. for being an object of debate for political, cultural or other reasons), did not touch a subject matter which was debated, saw no distinction by receiving awards, invitations to festivals or particularly positive or negative reviews (if at all), was not of importance for the careers of the people involved, and had no a re-run of any sort (as a re-release or part of a retrospective).  As far as I can see, it has been mentioned retrospectively in one book by Jun'ichirō Tanaka (thanks to research by Chamaemelum), but without reviewing it (for obvious reasons); also, said source does not indicate any importance for Japanese cinema at the time per se, for a genre, a subject matter, or the filmographies of anyone involved in the production.  All very sparse, in my opinion.  Robert Kerber ( talk ) 08:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and expand.  I don't see a good reason to delete this, as the movie doesn't fail notability enough to justify removing its page.  It is currently way to "stubby" though, and should be expanded.  DarmaniLink ( talk ) 02:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:30, 29 July 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: no consensus