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. Not a snowball's chance of this pointy nom ending in anything but 'keep' The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Adventure (1974 film)[edit]

The Great Adventure (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article has been created by Dr. Blofeld, who may have intentions of doing his/her best to contribute to Wikipedia yet still have bias and slander toward me for my edits. Anyway, this article's topic does not meet WP:GNG because nobody in the United States and in Europe is familiar with this film, no press has covered this film recently, and I have yet to meet an Argentinian person who is very familiar with this film at all. This article shall not be a substitute of film databases. Also, I have tried Google and Bing; no reviews have been found. By the way, the creator of this article has been reported in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine cinema went through a very rough patch from the late 60s through to the late 90s. The worst periods were 1970s and 1980s when they churned out comedy after comedy, a lot of them sexual comedies which I understand were pretty lame films most of which are not widely talked about today in Argentina. We aren't talking about classic golden age Argentine cinema from the thirties to early 60s. But I believe the films have enough sources and a wide enough release at the time and starring notable actors to be worthy of inclusion. Víctor Bo was a major film star and Armando Bo a top director in Argentina during this period. Even if Armando's films were condemned for their sexual content (Isabel Sarli). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are many reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to provide them for us? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try its Spanish title, La gran aventura, which should be the title of the article. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This should help: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=gran+aventura+-wikipedia&oq=gran+aventura+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2018l4249l0l4439l12l12l0l11l0l0l185l185l0.1l1l0#q=%22gran+aventura%22+-wikipedia+1974&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1,apr:a&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=cNPOTvPRLuKoiALc3ej1Cw&ved=0CBUQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=3e3991b465e6d3c6&biw=1008&bih=571. However, I could not find any good sources, yet one mentioned it as a Bond tribute but is just an article about the director. I'm still searching. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources provided and I can find none. There may be Spanish sources which I am not aware of; if these can be found, I shall change my position. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; notable enough, although actually getting ahold of sources might be obscure. It's covered, for example, in Argentine cinema: modernity and avant-garde, 1957/1983, Volume 2 in what appears to be reasonable depth. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give us quotes and pages? I can't find them on Internet. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Books snippet view showed me enough to see the section was of reasonable length discussing the film (which for me establishes notability). I don't have the book. There is nothing wrong with offline sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Link please? I can't find it. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per being notable enough for a 37-year-old Argentinian film. We do not expect nor demand that a long pre-internet film from a non-English country have ongoing coverage in English sources in 2011. And while hoping otherwise, the nominator's including his unfounded ANI complaint in hios nomination rationale makes this nomination itself appear to be done as a retailatory to a perceived affront. I suggest this be closed, and if deemed neccesary, re-opened by an editor not involved in a confict with the article's author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your position, Schmidt, but so far, no reliable sources at all have been provided. You are right that the level of coverage required for this article will be substantially lower than recent, Engish-language films; however, I would suggest that at least one reliable source should be found if we are to keep the article. Until such a source is presented - and this need not be an online source, I expect it won't be - I shall maintain my position. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patience is a virtue my friend.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability of a topic is determined by sources being available, and not by sources being present in an article about that topic. As we do have sources about the film[1] and the director,[2] this becomes a matter for regular editing, and not the disruption of a retaliatory nomination. If you do not feel that the available sources might be used for adressing an adresable issue, then let this be closed and renominated by someone who is not pushing a prsonal agenda. We do not reward pointy behavior, nor allow discussions such as AFD to be used as platforms for the canvassing input at ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have stroke that for you. As for this film, this has not been covered in English sources. Maybe it is covered in Spanish ones, but who knows? --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not have to have English sources, in fact it would be unreasonable to expect anything about this film in anything other than Spanish. In future try googling the name of the film /director/actor in google books and it might surprise you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, clearly pointy nomination. Sanction nominator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Note This nomination is not eligible for a speedy close, the relevent speedy close criteria does not apply if an uninvolved editor has endorsed deletion as has occurred here. It is however starting to look like snow... Monty₈₄₅ 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Robjp21019 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know how notable this film is. I do know that the 'reasoning' in the nomination is disgusting. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A rhetorical question for the nominator : In the first sentence of the nomination you accused another Wikipedia editor of "bias and slander" towards you. Are you willing to retract that? Dr. B asked me to have a look at the AfD , but, as I am entirely ignorant on the subject, I have no opinion on the actual notability of the film. I do have some knowledge, however, about WP:NPA. I added a note that the qy is rhetorical, because another admin has blocked ithe nom. indef., so he cannot really be expected to answer DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's indicated that he'd like to carry on the conversation on his talkpage if you are interested. It may be beneficial Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The added sources express the notability of the film. Simple as that. Silverseren^C 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the sources now provided. Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:FILM with no problem at all. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Adequate sources showing in footnotes. Whether sources are "recent" is completely irrelevant. Appears to be a bad faith nomination based upon the personal attack-laden rationale. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (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.