Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Night Malvinas

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[]

Good Night Malvinas[edit]

[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)

Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search did not reveal reliable sources. I don't find the present reviews enough for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Keep - Página 12 and La Nación are very clearly two independent reliable sources that confer notability and discuss the topic in depth. Both are in the article already. Standard for NFILM is discussion in two RS. matt91486 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Additional sources (not already in the article), demonstrating an insufficient BEFORE: [1], [2]. matt91486 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[]

NFILM requires "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." (Emphasis mine) That's not the case here. It also says "has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which hasn't been shown here. NFILM requires more than just two reliable sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[]

I am deeply puzzled by what you expect to be finding. The reviewer for La Nación is clearly a regular reviewer at one of the biggest newspapers in the country [3]. Similarly for Página 12 you have one of their major culture writers: [4]. Regular critics at two of the biggest papers in the country very clearly meet this standard. matt91486 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Delete - I was on the fence, until I read Chris troutman's points. I agree that just having two reviews is not enough to confer notability, unless the two reviews are by critics notable enough to have their own articles. Since those are the only two reviews and the film has been out for 18 months, I find it unlikely that more coverage will emerge. There's not much information in this article anyway, and it can easily be re-created if coverage comes out 5 years after the film's release. Wes sideman (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Keep. Putting the NFILM issue aside, the film seems to pass the GNG: the La Nación and Página 12 reviews are in-depth and from reliable outlets, and there are other sources – such as [5] and the two that Matt91486 listed – out there as well. NFILM is pretty clearly not intended to supplant the GNG (it simply lists "attributes that generally indicate...that the required sources are likely to exist"), so I don't think it really matters whether any of the WP:NFO criteria are also satisfied so long as the GNG is met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 16:14, 28 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.