Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Short Life of Anne Frank

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, History, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anne Frank Unbound: Media, Imagination, Memory (Indiana University Press, 2012) has coverage about the film. See also: https://www.statesboroherald.com/life/anne-frank-a-history-for-today/ or https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/7/20538955/explore-the-world-of-anne-frank-no-need-to-go-to-holland/ for example. Can also be redirected to List of films about Anne Frank -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into List of films about Anne Frank, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank would indeed be a good choice here, since the page itself is a little skimpy as to standalone notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already in the article, there are reviews in the Library Journal, the School Library Journal, The Video Librarian and the Library Media Connection. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the "significance" part of the general notability guideline. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in Cultural depictions of Anne Frank. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. czar 01:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you making an argument to "Keep"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty firmly in the middle with this one. I suppose if pressed I'd argue for a weak keep. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, sorry to press you but in close calls, it helps to know where, after their analysis, editors land. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's understandable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cultural depictions of Anne Frank per WP:SIZERULE. There might be some potential for a longer article here, but as of right now there are basically no reliable sources about this film online, other than the fact it exists, and frankly it seems unlikely more will surface as this film is over 20 years old and was not exactly a major production. The article would just be a permanent stub if it was kept, so I believe a merge is the right thing for it. It can always be remade as its own article if more ever does come about. Archimedes157 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article has been expanded and improved I would like to say my opinion has changed to Keep. Props to ReaderofthePack, good work. Archimedes157 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's more of a Start Class article now it's been expanded. It already has reliable sources references such as Deseret News and the reviews. May well pass WP:NFILM for being archived in a national museum, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while its not much more than a stub article, it does appear to meet notability from reliable sources. And while notability is not technically inherited, the fact that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and Anne Frank House should factor in to some degree. I would be okay with a merge as proposed above as well. TiggerJay (talk) 06:47, 18 September 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.

The Short Life of Anne Frank

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.