Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gringalet (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 delete. Just. This is super tight but right now, based off the state of the article, I find the "delete" majority (as narrow as it is) to be more compelling. However, noting the comments in this discussion, this close does not prejudice re-creation at all (even less than normal), for a well-sourced article which demonstrates more notability than the deleted version does. If anyone wishes to undertake that task, and wants the article deleted and userfied, feel free to ask and I will happily oblige. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Gringalet (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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

PROD removed because "I would be *extremely* cautious about WP:BEFORE for a 1950s Argentine film on the Anglophone internet, myself (deprodding)". Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the 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) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Not sure what they meant by "be extremely cautious"...seems like a warning not to mess with the article?" As the deprodder, I can confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt I did not mean this. As you were told in other AfDs regarding deprodded 1950s Argentine films, this is not something where you can realistically expect most or all references to be available on the English-speaking internet, regardless of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Also, you transcluded the AfD incorrectly, so I've fixed that for you. Hope that's fine.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the transclusion. As for my reasoning, I don't necessarily expect articles of this age to have reviews online, but even in the Spanish article the citations listed fail WP:NFILM.  There is a book listed, which the "reviews" aren't attributed to (they are just there in the article with no book/newspaper attributed to them so that someone can verify if they had a copy of the book/newspaper). Anyone can question the notability of an article when it appears to fail inclusion guidelines, which I have. And, if anyone disagrees, that is why we have the discussion, so they can provide the proof of notability...whether in the discussion or adding to the article. Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete it is time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. We need reliable sources, which IMDb is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Is this seriously a thing? There is nothing technically notable about this other than it was a film. I get it that it's from the 1950's but there's still no context or anything explaining how notable this is (IMDb is NOT reliable since its content is user generated). Kline &#124; vroom vroom 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just curious because I so often see this comment in AfDs (and I don't know that it is relevant here because this article doesn't have anything from IMDb)--have you tried to have something edited on IMDb in recent years? It may be "user-generated", but it is more reliable than Wikipedia. IMDb editors (not IMDb users) require attachments from high quality and often contemporary sources that spell things out exactly one way. This process takes days or weeks; changes aren't instantaneous, and often they are never made. There are some changes I'll never be able to get done, even with citations, because of the lofty standards IMDb pages have to meet. Maybe it wasn't always like that, but it is now. This "user-generated" business I read all the time. How many Wikipedia editors have tried to get changes made on IMDb? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's an external link, I'm fine with that, but if it cites it, especially as the only source, it's gonna go. Have you read WP:IMDB?? Kline &#124; vroom vroom 00:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The non-answer answers my question that you haven't directly, and I'll answer yours with "yes" and again that that does not apply to this article as it isn't cited here and I've added sourcing. So funny to see IMDb repeatedly brought up in discussions where IMDb isn't an issue. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus could be shifting per the last two !votes
 * Delete. There is no assertion that the article passes any WP:NFILM criteria, and the sourcing quite clearly fails the GNG. Several diligent searches have done nothing to change that, and so the article must be deleted. If there really are Spanish-language sources, then someone should be able to find them. But until then, we have nothing but speculation about notability, which cannot save the article. I'm glad to reëvaluate if new sources come to light. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sure that the film existed but without any evidence of notability, we can't really justify keeping it. No deletion is irreversible so, if sources are ever found, this can always be restored. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets NFILM. Reviewed in Variety... in our very own language folks, yes. "Pictures: Gringalet." Variety (Archive: 1905-2000); Los Angeles Vol. 216, Iss. 8, (Oct 21, 1959): 23. Via Proquest. This and the reviews excerpted on the Spanish language WP article, which seem to come from: Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2001). Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) pág. 256/7. Buenos Aires, Editorial Corregidor. ISBN 950-05-0896-6, which is mentioned on many Argentine film articles, suffice.  I echo the sentiments of the prod declined. Caution, care, thoroughness is important. It's best to look beyond the paywalls for films of this age--even U.S. films--Googling may be what is called for in BEFORE, but it causes Wikipedia to fall short of what it can be. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above such as Variety and Spanish sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (weak) The subject is a mainstream Argentinian production of 1959, but the film fails the fairly strict criteria of WP:NFILM. It could pass GNG based on the Variety review, but then NFILM would never have to be applied, and would be rendered defunct; I don't think that would work in general. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:21, 11 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.