Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Habilitado

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Habilitado

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, appears to fail

WP:BEFORE

, Wikipedia is not an IMdB mirror.

Spanish article has 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) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another IMDb mirror article.. Kline | vroom vroom 16:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable film.
talk) 22:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the nominator has pointed out, reviews exist and are quoted in the Spanish language article here. How does the nominator know the dictionary is "just a 'dictionary of Argentine films'"? Do they have full access to the text? To repeat what I said in a similar AfD: quotes most likely came from and are cited in this book that is also mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia article, which I should be able to get via interlibrary loan. With the help of Google translate, I will see whether I can get more specific citations from the book; if not, I can look and see whether there are other reviews excerpted or what other information I can find out. But the sources exist and are apparently non-trivial and show some analysis.
talk
)
Delete verrifiability means we need to proactively prove notability. The keep vote is based on supposition without actual reliance in sources. We do not have actual well used sources that show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.