Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Caradura y la millonaria


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

El Caradura y la millonaria

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

Article is completely unsourced. No sources found DavidEfraim (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. DavidEfraim (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Sources and some details found, but in my opinion the film's notability is still problematic.--Darius (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The refs provided are not counting towards GNG, one is a database entry, the other is a dictionary listing. Both are not significant coverage IMO, but will change my mind once more refs are found. VickKiang (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough film by a notable director., Cinenacional.com is notable. This has an entry in the dictionary of Argentine films on page 92 (which I can't access but will have several film review quotes) and is a notable director. The articles in his filmography all need improvement but it does meet GNG and I'm sure there were numerous newspaper sources in Argentina with film reviews at the time.♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I disagree. IMO, an entry at a database like IMDB and a dictionary entry are not significant enough. Per WP:FILM guidelines, the film has to have two significant, reliable refs, won a major award, or is re released five years after, I don't see this here, but this is an interesting film. But I can change my mind if you can find Argentine refs, but right now, I am still agreeing per nom on weak delete. Many thanks, please ping me when you find more refs, and thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I say just a database source was enough? No. I said Cinenacional is a notable database and mentioned the entry in the definitive book on Argentine films.♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help and comments on my vote, but I still disagree. Even if it's a "definitive book" (evidence?), only a brief mention isn't enough; per WP:FILM, Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database, I think the dictionary is a "capsule review", but if it's longer than a lengthy paragraph, IMO that's one notable ref, but could you please insert more info in article if you have access. And the database? It's probably high-profile and reliable enough (this I agree), but it's not signiicant. The ad-like WP article says that (though there isn't a citation) Cinenacional.com is a web portal and web-based database about Argentine cinema. The site provides a vast array of information, including films, television programs, directors, actors, cinematographers, film editors, production designers, and other production professions in Argentina. It is the most comprehensive site for information about the film industry in the country, and has over 30.000 IMDb-type articles on films alone in its database, from the silent film era onwards; based on "most comprehensive site" and "over 30,000 IMDB-type articles", I consider it to be maybe reliable, but it's not significant enough, as it only lists basic info on release and actors for almost all films (like IMDB), so I still stand by my vote of deleting. Many thanks for your help and advice! VickKiang (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Reconsider, the article is now sourced so deletion rationale as stated is no longer true. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I see plenty of sources on Google books in Spanish which could be used to support this film's obvious notability. As is, it is still notable, and I totally agree with Dr. Blofeld's arguments. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User talk:Dr. Blofeld's and User:Shshshsh's reasoning. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Sorry but the consensus is clearly keep on this. No idea why you relisted it again.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Dr. Blofeld, to cover my ass. I have found my decisions to "Keep" articles (and "No consensus", too) are more frequently challenged at Deletion Review than decisions to "Delete" articles. So, I like to see a solid consensus to Keep an article, along with good rationales, to close a discussion as Keep. And I don't think I'm alone in this among admins patrolling AFDs, if you look at a page of a day's AFDs, discussions with a clear Delete consensus are closed faster than those with a mix of viewpoints or those with a deletion nomination and Keeps. And if my honesty leads to an appearance at a noticeboard, please include other admins who join me closing AFD discussions because I don't think I'm alone here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be an interesting exercise for some tech person to track admins who close deletion discussions and see which ones tend to close discussions as "Delete" while there are others who tend to take on more complicated cases and have a more balanced record (Keep/Delete/No Consensus/Redirect/Merge) for AFD closures. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Shshshsh. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable book sources added to the article since nomination so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 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.