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 keep. czar 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting GNG. In Google Books, there's trivial mentions here and there 1, 2, and it's often cited as a ref, see 1, but there isn't indicating of meeting GNG. VickKiang (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citations are plenty but are IMO not enough to meet GNG, but are indicative of reliability. Which criteria do you think it meets GNG? If this is a company, it doesn’t have enough significant, coverages; is there a source for here: most comprehensive site for information about the Argentine film industry, is there sources for this? Please ping me on which criteria you think it meets GNG. THe DK Eyewitness is interesting, but why do you think it's more than a passing mention? Though, I probably agree that I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I would probably change my mind if more reliable refs are provided, but right now I still disagree a bit with the line The nominator clearly lacks understanding on what meets notability requirements here. Many thanks for your improvements to the article! VickKiang (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scan through books shows many that discuss the database, mostly in Spanish. I did not find any lengthy description, but enough non-trivial discussion to demonstrate notability. Also, there are more than 500 pages in Wikipedia that cite it, which could be reason enough to keep its entry. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I still disagree. I think that notability requires significant coverage, if there’s no lengthy description, how is the coverage meeting notability? I am a bit confused with the wording, and looked at the refs you and Dr Blofeld inserted, they are certainly RS, but I couldn’t see descriptions longer than a paragraph. I also don’t see any policies that say a website should be kept based on WP citations? Many thanks for your help and improving the article! VickKiang (talk)
"Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail ... is more than a trivial mention." A large number of sources with brief but non-trivial coverage shows notability, as does a smaller number of sources with more extensive coverage. The number of inbound links indicates that it would be useful to our readers to have a description of the database even if it were technically not notable. Most of those links are citations of Cinenacional.com, and our readers may be curious about the source. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY after Blofeld's excellent work. Shahid • Talk2me 21:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mentioned in main media of Argentina Clarin, Pagina12 and LaNacion. In Particular La Nación mentions that the site is supported by the INCAA, a governmental institution. Mariano(t/c) 11:44, 10 July 2022 (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.