Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumbos malditos


 * 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. Can be restored to draft via WP:REFUND by anybody who wants to work on it.  Sandstein  10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Rumbos malditos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites and blogs. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If it is notable enough to merit keeping or draftifying, sources should be presented that establish that.
 * Delete articles should not last sourced only to IMDb for 13 days, let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify Notable enough but there is virtually no content or context. Should be expanded first. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify per above, but relevant WikiProject should be tagged so that they can improve it. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify, Article has no content so it needs work. Alex-h (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Curious as to why everyone is saying Draftify when they haven't presented a single source to merit keeping the article. What good is Draftifying the article if there is nothing to support it even if it gets expanded and republished?  Presenting the sources now seems a better choice. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with draftifying if someone in this discussion is volunteering to work on the draft and get it back into mainspace. It's not a good idea to draftify articles this old unless they're being actively worked on because they will just be deleted after six months anyway so it's deletion by the back door. I can't find any RIS to support this article and nobody else seems to have either, so unless anyone comes up with anything in this discussion my vote is Delete. Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:40, 19 September 2020 (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.