Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De noche también se duerme


 * 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. There was a rough consensus about the reliability of the excerpted reviews providing notability, given that film reviews from the 1950s were not likely to be online. Only one (weak) delete !vote came in, and that voter surmised that the film dictionary cite roughly satisfied the GNG. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

De noche también se duerme
Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.

PROD removed because "Removed PROD. Please check Interwiki. Multiple reviews are quoted in the Spanish language article."

In any case, when I did my BEFORE, I checked that article. There is a book listed that is just a "dictionary of Argentine films" and 2 "reviews" that have no citations, so I can't verify their authenticity. So, none of those satisfy WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is no requirement that reviews be online. They need to exist. They are cited to the aforementioned book, which is a dictionary of Argentine film. As part of their entries, they appear to excerpt reviews. You expecting reviews to be online from movies from the 1950s is not necessarily a reasonable request. matt91486 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reviews aren't attributed to the book, they are just listed in the Spanish article, so how would any reasonable person be expected to know that. Also, I know the requirements are that they need to exist, but since they aren't attributed in the article anyone can question the notability of any article that lacks them, as I have. Again, the Spanish article has a reference to a book that appears to be just a listing of films (and the "reviews" aren't attributed to the book...they are just there) and that isn't enough to pass notability requirements. The 2 "reviews" also need to be in-depth reviews...not capsule reviews...to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In other entries that the person who wrote the article, it's more clearly indicated that the summaries of the reviews come from the text, as sometimes the text itself is quoted as one of the reviews. I didn't write the article, I understand it's not written optimally. That being said, we have excerpts from reviews from two relevant publications from the 1950s. It is absolutely not reasonable to expect to have online access to reviews from this era, and the fact that we have a book excerpting them is actually a very strong indication of its notability. There are incredible systemic bias concerns (WP:BIAS) with relying solely on convenient information to determine notability. I agree, it is certainly preferable and better if we happened to have links to online reviews. But a dictionary of the topic including an entry, and excerpting reviews from two independent publications of the era, seems to very clearly indicate notability as well as can be reasonably expected with the resources we have. matt91486 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Delete - Yet another Enrique Carreras' comedy from the 1960s, hardly remembered as one of his "masterpieces" (such as Los Evadidos, Amalio Reyes, un hombre and Las Locas, all of them award-winners in different festivals). Be cited by Manrupe & Portela's dictionary may be enough for WP:GNG, but the movie fails WP:NFOE. Once again, a prolific filmmaker and a great cast, but notability is not inherited.---Darius (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per matt91486. It is clear that sources/reviews exist. We have direct quotes from two publications in the Spanish language article here. I agree that the quotes mostl likely came from and are cited in this book that is also mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia article, which I should be able to get via interlibrary loan. With the help of Google translate, I will see whether I can get more specific citations from the book; if not, I can look and see whether there are other reviews excerpted or what other information I can find out. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the relible sources reviews mentioned above that the editor intends to reformat for easier verification, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2021 (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.