- 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete, or to redirect this article to another title. This closure does not preclude a potential separate proposal to merge this article to a suitable merge target. BD2412 T 00:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
26 personas para salvar al mundo
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 26 personas para salvar al mundo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG can't find much in the way of independent sources for this Spanish series of documentaries. Theroadislong ( talk) 17:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
CommentKeep..."Can't find much in the way...." Did you even consult the Spanish Wikipedia, as the article's tag suggested? Do you speak Spanish? What did you discover...? Perhaps, multiple published reliable sources that you do not understand? That is NO reason to nominate this for deletion. If you are going to be an AfC reviewer, you must do better than this. The mere existence of such sources is supposed to be considered adequate to retain the article, according to that often-cited guideline. A loose necktie ( talk) 19:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)- None of the sources added with this edit
[1] support the content? and " once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface"
Theroadislong (
talk) 20:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have specified sources, as best I know how, see below. "Seldom persuasive..." ? Is that policy? A loose necktie ( talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 23:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete - Both the Spanish and English language articles are based on self-published sources (the defunct "Infinito" channel, which produced the series); but it is worth to be mentioned on Jorge Lanata's bio.--- Darius ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I was the editor who rejected this article in draft as it was previously declined with the request to add reliable sources. The article was then resubmitted, still without sources. The sources that have since been added do not establish notability, nor do the ones in the Spanish Wikipedia. Also, a Google search does not find any notable independent mentions. I still stand by my decision to reject. David.moreno72 05:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- David, do you speak Spanish? Did you independently verify that none of the Spanish language sources gave evidence of this article's notability? And why did you ignore my request to reconsider the decision to decline it for publication?
A loose necktie (
talk) 00:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie. Yes, I did independently verify. Why did I ignore your request? Because you ignored the great big edit notice on my talk page which says "If you have an Article for Creation, DO NOT ask me to review it or ask for help on how to improve it." Only I get to decide which drafts I review. Thank-you
David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC
- David, please understand that I did not ask you to review the article or ask for help on improving it-- you chose to review it. I asked you to reconsider your decision to decline it for publication, to which you did not respond. Is there someone else I should have asked? A loose necktie ( talk) 10:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie. Yes, I did independently verify. Why did I ignore your request? Because you ignored the great big edit notice on my talk page which says "If you have an Article for Creation, DO NOT ask me to review it or ask for help on how to improve it." Only I get to decide which drafts I review. Thank-you
David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC
- David, do you speak Spanish? Did you independently verify that none of the Spanish language sources gave evidence of this article's notability? And why did you ignore my request to reconsider the decision to decline it for publication?
A loose necktie (
talk) 00:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep -- provided the Proceso link is real (its redirecting me to the title page) that should count. Additionally, I found other discussions
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5]
matt91486 (
talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the sources cited are promotional, mere advertising of Lanata's documentaries, exception made of
El Litoral newspaper, whose page is just a review of Lanata's book based upon the series. Promotional pages or passing mentions fail to establish an article's notability.
Darius (
talk) 21:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think I have a very different interpretation of what promotional pages/passing mentions means than you do, if the El Dia article would not count. It is an article in a newspaper about the debut of a TV series. This is promotional in the sense that every article in a newspaper about a TV series debuting is promotional; however, it is certainly not a press release (which is how *I* interpret that policy). And definitely not a passing mention. matt91486 ( talk) 05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the sources cited are promotional, mere advertising of Lanata's documentaries, exception made of
El Litoral newspaper, whose page is just a review of Lanata's book based upon the series. Promotional pages or passing mentions fail to establish an article's notability.
Darius (
talk) 21:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also, there are over
11,000 Google hits for this title. I realize many of them don't count. Don't at least two of them?? Here is just
one that seems like it should.
Here is another. Did no one look??
A loose necktie (
talk) 00:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie. First one is a passing mention, the second one is promotional ie. Go check out this show. So no, they don't establish
WP:GNG. Thank you
David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you look at the article's current sourcing?
A loose necktie (
talk) 04:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie . First source appears to be mostly a copy and paste of the transcript, and so appears to be more about the opinions of the interviewees than about the show. Second source is promotional. Third source is about the creator, not about the show.
WP:GNG states that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also as an indication of notability, the page since its release into mainspace has only around 150 page views, and for that past few days its rate is lucky to hit double digits. Every indication suggests that the topic is not notable. My userpage gets more views. Thank you
David.moreno72 04:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first source is a discussion of the transcript of the series, it isn't a copy-and-paste of anything (the transcript itself might be, and certainly should be, but that isn't the point). That you cannot see even this means you are not willing to accept that the topic might, in fact, be notable, no matter how much evidence is provided, because you will always reject it as insufficient, even if the reason for that rejection is unfounded (as it is right there, with the first source). I know it is difficult to reverse your position; I would feel the same way if I were you. It would be wrong of me, though. I am not saying there is any overwhelming tide of evidence that you are refusing to see, I am saying there is enough evidence... I do hope you can see that (the number of hits relative to your userpage is irrelevant and kind of insulting, though). A loose necktie ( talk) 05:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie . First source appears to be mostly a copy and paste of the transcript, and so appears to be more about the opinions of the interviewees than about the show. Second source is promotional. Third source is about the creator, not about the show.
WP:GNG states that "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also as an indication of notability, the page since its release into mainspace has only around 150 page views, and for that past few days its rate is lucky to hit double digits. Every indication suggests that the topic is not notable. My userpage gets more views. Thank you
David.moreno72 04:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Did you look at the article's current sourcing?
A loose necktie (
talk) 04:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
A loose necktie. First one is a passing mention, the second one is promotional ie. Go check out this show. So no, they don't establish
WP:GNG. Thank you
David.moreno72 04:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 21:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: with history & possibilities Rcats to Jorge Lanata where it is mentioned, albeit lede-only (which is incorrect), and which not be a WP:SURPRISE but leaves a valid search term. No real issue with a keep if someone successfully digs further. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidal prophet 03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidal prophet 03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I dug further. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean you added a source to the article 5 days ago. In that case it was a comment raised by Jorge Lanata himself in an interview in answer to a question (the article seems abstract because the article seems the interview of Lanata). It does not in my opinion constitute WP:RS so my earlier !vote of of redirect stands. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand. You are saying that Lanata is not a WP:RS on the subject of the series he made? That doesn't seem to make any sense (like some of the rest of the remark there). I appreciate the willingness to consider a redirect, but the request for additional sourcing was met and then apparently dismissed out of hand as "unreliable" (?). A loose necktie ( talk) 00:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: If there is no progression towards a delete consensus, I would be happy to support the redirect ivote of Djm-leighpark. Considering that the article already exists on the Spanish Wikipedia, and the show is predominately for a Spanish audience, that should be more than enough for anyone interested in learning more. Thank you David.moreno72 11:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand what this means. You mean that the fact that the article exists on the Spanish Wikipedia means we should have a redirect here on the English one? So that English readers can... refer to... the Spanish article... which they won't understand without translation? If anyone is interested in learning more about this subject via the English Wikipedia, shouldn't we just have an article on it here, provided it is well sourced? (as it now is). A loose necktie ( talk) 13:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment this is a difficult one, prima facie it appears not to be notable, however there being a Spanish language Wikipage, version suggests otherwise. The article in its current form needs to be tidied up + expanded. -- Devoke water 11:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would love to know how you believe it is currently "untidy" or how you think it may be expanded. I have expanded it as much as I know how and given that, I believe it is as tidy as it can be. A loose necktie ( talk) 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - leaning towards keep based on the discussion above. Riteboke ( talk) 16:37, 13 April 2021 (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.