Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bone Breaker


 * 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. For notability, sources are not required to be added to an article; they merely must exist. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bone Breaker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Movie with no evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 11:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bone Breaker is listed for filmmaker Sergio Esquenazi at Argentina Films, but not at IMDB.., but then IMBD is not the best source for all films ever made, and the topic is searchable. I suggest input from Argentinian Wikiedians with access to hardcopy sources to supplement what is available online.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. The article is weeks old now, and has had a PROD, a speedy, and an AFD removed, yet still does not provide any references or other claim of notability.--Dmol (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Pardon me, but being "weeks old" for an article not in violation of WP:NOT or WP:BLP is not a valid deletion argument. And as Argentinian sources exist allowing a presumption toward notability (they need not BE in the article), are we now not allowed, per encouraged efforts to counter systemic bias, to even allow the least bit of patience that an Argentinian Wikipedian might stumble upon this article in en.Wikipedia and then decide to improve it?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply- You are missing my point. I mentioned the age of the article to illustrate that the original editor has had plenty of time to add references that show notability but has not done so. The tags for speedy, Prod, and AFD all make mention of the same need for notability to be shown. We do not keep non notable articles that someone might come along to later and decide to work on, especially when the article does not even claim any notability, and indeed, even says that the film was poorly distributed.--Dmol (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Response The article makes an obvious claim to notability in its asserting to be a film from a notable director. Your assertion seems to be that the topic must somehow automatically be non-notable simply because available sources have not yet been added to the article.  That is not per guideline.  What guideline encourages, is that with an availability of sources, a "presumption" of notabiliy might be made, and newness of an article is not the sole deciding factor.  And yes, per guideline, we can indeed choose to keep sourcable articles on notable topics so that editors may address issues through regular editing as they are able. And my point in turn when addressing your concern addressed at a new editor, is that while these tags might mean something to experienced editors, they mean next to nothing to a new editor with but 13 career edits, and a newbie not knowing how to edit and expand and source articles is perhaps forgivable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 27 December 2010 (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.