Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prioridad nacional


 * 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 speedy keep. An article being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid rationales for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America1000 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Prioridad nacional

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not only is this a stub, it's a stub of a stub, it literally has a title and 7 words. Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Also note that a) the article is longer than seven words and b) There are shorter ones out there. You might also take a look at WP:BEFORE MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep length is not a justification for deletion. Curro2 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, this is one of a series of Spanish language WP:PRODs which points out a systemic bias.  A lot of serious Spanish language cinema is not translated into English.  So they are underrepresented in various search engines.  in fact, the change in languages, lettering and names creates a GIGO conundrum for searchers, even though they may be diligent and seemingly thorough.  Finally, this motion fails because of WP:Before.  All one has to do is click on "HIGHBEAM" above to see that this is a B.S. Nomination. Clearly it should be expanded.  Clearly more references can and should be added.  But deletion is out of the question. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The debut film of an Academy Award winning director, director of The Secret in Their Eyes. While I agree it's weak notability and not as notable as his later films we generally accept early works by prominent film directors on here. Being the 1970s, I'm sure most sources about it are offline in newspapers. We're better off having the article than not.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:27, 7 February 2016 (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.