The Devil On Trial: Sorry about that.  So, the user who created the page has been blocked on multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স .  (per MushyYank request, stricken)  This page, before I did digging on it, was purely promotional.  I added several sources (incidentally, my additions were the reason the PROD was removed), but I don't think this passes WP:NFILM , in my understanding.  It's possible that I'm not following something in the criteria that does make this notable, but I don't know that the documentary should have its own page.  In reading the reviews, they focus mainly on the 1981 trial rather than on the film.  Some of them mention The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It .  One of them mentioned an older documentary that they said "did it better".  I'm willing to dig for more sources if the community decides as a whole that it passes WP:NFILM .  1 might apply b/c there are reviews.  But: its only claim to "historical notability" is its coverage of a historical event, of which it is not unique; I saw no indication that the film is up for any kind of award; as far as I know it hasn't been selected for preservation in a national archive; nor did I find any notice of it being taught in an accredited university's film program.  As for the inclusionary criteria that aren't part of the top : it's not unique in any aspect of its production; there aren't any major film stars in it; and it was made by Netflix, so it doesn't fall under the third one.  So, before I spend another several hours sussing out sources for something that, frankly, I stumbled over because of a CS1 error and was erroneously marked as AFI, I thought there should be consensus that it actually passes WP:NFILM .  OIM20 ( talk ) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime .  OIM20 ( talk ) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The film only needs to fit one of the criteria of WP:NFILM to demonstrate notability.  (Otherwise, every film described on Wikipedia would have to win an award and be preserved in an archive, which is an absurdly high bar.)  So the relevant measure here is that it's received multiple reviews.  In this case, the combo of the Time article and the New York Times article are enough to demonstrate notability.  Good job on rescuing the article!  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Understood.  To clarify, I meant that the PROD I placed on it myself was removed because of the sources I had added in, before I put the PROD on it.  The reason given for removing the PROD was only that there were a number of sources.  From what you've said I understand that the reason was b/c of the reviews.  And to be fair, the two you mention were included in the promotional piece it was before, though the NYT review does not say what the article creator claimed it said.  Part of my concern stems from the fact that many of the reviews focus in a large part on the incident rather than on the film.  I don't think I included many of those - it was wee hours for me and I've since closed those tabs.  There were a lot of reviews, but not all of them from places that I think are considered RS.  But thank you for explaining.  Since it only needs two reviews and it has a number, I will try to focus my research on the production and casting areas, to get a better source than IMDB.  OIM20 ( talk ) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm confused.  What's the reason advanced for deletion exactly?  The film received multiple reviews, including 1 in the NYT . .... Strong keep .  (I'm the one who deproDed the page, fwiw). - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I know you did.  I'm not trying to be contrarian, though I'm sure it seems it.  I really was thinking that this needed more than just reviews, so I misunderstood the criteria for NFILM.  Not the first time I've misunderstood something.  After I realized that the AFI was placed on the article erroneously, I looked into the article creator's talk page and found the note about them being a banned user.  I realized when looking at the other pages in drafts listed on their talk page that they were posting promotional articles - which was what the other cleanup on the article you took care of (the sections I stopped at b/c I wasn't sure continuing would be worth the effort if it was just going to get nuked) were.  Thank you for taking care of that.  Thank you for your patience.  I still consider myself relatively new.  I'm trying to learn.  OIM20 ( talk ) 18:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Should i change my talk page?  I do not wish or mean any harm to anyone....  please guide me, i will change accordingly.  Omadacycline ( talk ) 14:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Move to lowercase "on" if we keep it or recreate it again.  Dicklyon ( talk ) 19:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ OIM20 : thank you for your clarifications and concern.  Two things, though:  1) the user who created the page has been blocked on multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স : no, I read the page and I'm sorry but that's not accurate.  The page creator is NOT blocked and he says he's not the person in question.  Can I ask you to strike that comment or to rephrase that bit of your rationale at the very least, please?  2) Did I understand your current position: you now think the film is notable, am I right?  Would you consider withdrawing?  It might save other contributors some time.  Thank you. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) , 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I'll withdraw - how do I do that?  OIM20 ( talk ) 05:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC); I think I understand how.  OIM20 ( talk ) 05:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw - I apologize for the trouble and thank everyone for their patience.  OIM20 ( talk ) 05:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there any problem with the content of the page?  Sock?  I am not any sock.  And i just want to contribute.... .  the devil on trial is not about anyone....  I am confused, have i done anything wrong. .... Omadacycline ( talk ) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "Withdraw" notice you replied to means that the nomination is withdrawn.  OIM20 ( talk ) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the devil on trial: The Devil On Trial: Unpacking the reality behind Netflix's chilling documentary, is it a true story?  - The Economic Times (indiatimes.com) The Devil On Trial - Wikidata The Devil on Trial (2023) - IMDb Watch The Devil on Trial | Netflix Official Site The Devil on Trial | Rotten Tomatoes Omadacycline ( talk ) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Linking to the Wikidata item isn't a source.  The others are on the page already, with the exception of the Economic Times.  I don't know that there's much more to add that isn't about the case itself, unless there's a review in that article.  I can't read it- it pops up a "login to read" screen and then it very kindly doesn't give me a spot to do that, or to create an account.  I'd like to have had a news article about the production process more, b/c I'd like to replace the one primary source for that.  And I'd like to have something that lists the first two actors in the cast list other than the IMDB page, since that's a user edited site.  But I didn't find either of those things.  OIM20 ( talk ) 08:01, 2 April 2024 (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: speedy keep