Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doña Juana (film)


 * 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. New sourcing found to support the article. Joyous! | Talk 05:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Doña Juana (film)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing significant was found in a BEFORE. Just being old isn't enough for notability.

PROD removed with "deprod; needs to go to AfD" Donald D23   talk to me  02:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany.  Donald D23   talk to me  02:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Film produced by Germany's (and Europe's) leading film company of the era. Notable director and cast, fair few mentions in books of film history. Likely dozens if not hundreds of contemporary German-language reviews of film. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral or Weak Delete. The current refs seems to not meet notability but might be close. This is a two hits mention, which is the same with this ref. The Karl Freund book also has just three hits. Therefore, IMHO these do not meet WP:SIGCOV requirements, per GNG nor count towards WP:NFILM's criteria 1 or 2, though the Karl Freund one might be close. Nevertheless, this has 10 hits and IMO meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS requirements (as well as being independent and secondary). I had a look at Google Books, some of these listed in the current article. However, they are almost all trivial mentions with one or two hits, 1,2, 3, and might not refer to the same film. However, this which has four hits but the other are mainly indexes. Therefore, I doubt that SIGCOV is met here, so WP:GNG is weakly failed. Additional criteria for WP:NFILM seems also not met IMO. My search on Newspapers.com found numerous papers referring to a different subject of the same name, but nothing for this film. Further, notability isn't inherited from notable directors, casts, and film companies. However, if additional refs are found ping me. Many thanks! Update: I don't think ref 2 (two mentions) or ref 3 (single mention) meet WP:SIGCOV, though the first ref might be though I could not access it. As such I'm updating to neutral.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment It seems there has not been much discussion yet of the mentions of the film in academic literature. It may be significant on account of its treatment of gender, as well as its place in the history of European cinema. For example, it is mentioned in the following articles:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0047244109104077

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/media/pdf/books/978-88-6969-331-1/978-88-6969-331-1-ch-01.pdf

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/100839/1/2014_montageav2014-1_kirsten-koehler.pdf

There are a number of other hits on Google Scholar. Chagropango (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lord Cornwallis and Chagropango. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the academic journals coverage identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 10 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.