Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/¿¡Revolución!?


 * 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. North America1000 12:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

¿¡Revolución!?

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOE. The only source in the article is a dead link of a review of the film, and the film does not seem to have been widely distributed or participated in festivals, NFOE attributes. I have failed to find other independent sources about the documentary. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Politics, Canada,  and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. I've fixed the dead review ref, and found an interview in a Montreal paper where he mentions the film in passing, but can't find SIGCOV online to suggest that this meets WP:NFILM. It was reportedly shown at two notable Montreal film festivals, but then seems to have retired quietly. The filmmaker might be notable though: I've linked to the existing French WP article about him, and can see enough reliable sources that he might pass WP:BIO. Storchy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think the multiple reviews as linked below would be adequate in your opinion? Many thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping VickKiang. And thanks to User:Goldsztajn, for finding multiple reviews in reliable sources, overseas festivals, and TV screenings. Those demonstrate adequate notability by WP:NFILM. Changing my position to Keep. Storchy (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Films aren't all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're minimally verifiable as existing — but there isn't sufficient sourcing here, or locatable elsewhere, to get this over WP:NFO on "because media coverage exists" grounds, and there's no indication of notable awards to get it over the "notable because awards" option either. Simply screening at film festivals isn't automatically enough in and of itself, if the film doesn't have enough coverage (e.g. film reviews in real media) about its screenings at film festivals. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There's two sources in the article, links for both worked for me (one is archived). I found multiple sources with reviews of the film (NB the interview article contains a significant introduction with analysis of the film). Passes the WP:GNG.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * More: Review of DVD release of the film, screened at the 2007 Bergen International Film Festival, 2007/2008 Canadian TV screenings.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think Goldsztajn's sources (especially The Globe and Mail, the Edmonton Journal, and the National Post) are enough to meet WP:NFILM/the GNG, and there are others out there as well, e.g. a review by Alison Gilmor in the Winnipeg Free Press available at . On balance, probably notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Commnet WP:NFOE establishes that reviews should be done by nationally known critics, or receive a significant award. From the sources, I fail to see in the sources that the film has even been nominated in relation to its screenings. --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a misconstruing of NFOE. A failure to satisfy a subject specific notability guideline does not disqualify an article that satisfies the GNG. Moreover, the criteria elaborated in NFOE are possible alternatives for establishing notability, not mandatory for establishing notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The multiple reviews linked, 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, appear to be lengthy enough (significantly longer than 100 words) to pass WP:SIGCOV, they do not fall under Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories... per WP:GNG. The sources appear to be WP:RS; The Globe and Mail is a newspaper of record, Toronto Star, Edmonton Journal, National Post, and L'aut'journal all appear to be credible newspapers that appear to meet WP:NEWSORG and demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the Proquest ref links to Winnipeg Free Press, a broadsheet that also appears to meet WP:NEWSORG. Moreover, Now (newspaper) is probably reliable, though I didn't locate editorial policies, only a FAQ. Nevertheless, seven reviews are more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. WP:NFILM criteria 1 is debatable, though I would like to opine that critics from The Globe and Mail, a Newspaper of record, and Toronto Star, one of the highest papers per List of newspapers in Canada by circulation, count as nationally known critics, making WP:NFILM criteria 1 likely met. WP:NFILM criteria 2 is not satisfied but that is not mandatory, given WP:GNG is definitely met and WP:NFILM criteria 1 is likely passed.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.