- 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. North America 1000 23:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
El Segundo (film)
- El Segundo (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NOTABILITY - obvious COI-driven WP:PROMO per history. Jytdog ( talk) 17:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I tried to find independent reliable sources about this film, but I came up with only a few articles from the local paper of the Texas town where it was filmed.(See [1], and this Google search for a few more.) Its IMDb page shows only 21 votes and no external reviews, which doesn't create much optimism about establishing notability. On the other hand, the film does have some notable cast members and notable participants from the world of Tejano music, so I would be happy to reevaluate if someone else can turn up better sources. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete — the article was created to promote its subject in 2008. If it were truly notable, I don't see how it wouldn't have been expanded on and sourced reliably by now, many years later. dalahäst ( let's talk!) 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- @
Dalahäst: though your concern may be valid, we must remember that as Wikipedia is admittedly
imperfect and an ongoing
work-in-progress a topic being
WP:NEGLECTED is a not a valid deletion reason. Not to scold, but I speak through a
just little experience in such maters. It does seem to have captured a little press.... but not much... and perhaps not enough to meet
WP:NF.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 05:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @
MichaelQSchmidt: True, it's always possible that an article has simply been neglected, though I would argue that the chance of an article remaining a stub due purely to neglect decreases over time. The article seems to have been rediscovered a few days ago, at which point it was PRODed on the grounds that it was promotional (as opposed to simply being tagged for cleanup or improved upon). The PROD failed because the tagging editor included a rationale in the edit summary, but not in the template; another user came by and declined the deletion because they didn't check the edit summary and couldn't figure out why the article was tagged.
dalahäst (
let's talk!) 07:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @ Dalahäst: I agree that the longer something sits neglected, the more likely it will never be improved, but WP:ATA tells us we need to be more specific... and I shared my examples only to show the fallacy of declaring neglect as a deletion rational. That stated, even with the inclusion of some notables in its cast and even after I fixed its format issues under MOS:FILM, I do not believe this one is savable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @
MichaelQSchmidt: True, it's always possible that an article has simply been neglected, though I would argue that the chance of an article remaining a stub due purely to neglect decreases over time. The article seems to have been rediscovered a few days ago, at which point it was PRODed on the grounds that it was promotional (as opposed to simply being tagged for cleanup or improved upon). The PROD failed because the tagging editor included a rationale in the edit summary, but not in the template; another user came by and declined the deletion because they didn't check the edit summary and couldn't figure out why the article was tagged.
dalahäst (
let's talk!) 07:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @
Dalahäst: though your concern may be valid, we must remember that as Wikipedia is admittedly
imperfect and an ongoing
work-in-progress a topic being
WP:NEGLECTED is a not a valid deletion reason. Not to scold, but I speak through a
just little experience in such maters. It does seem to have captured a little press.... but not much... and perhaps not enough to meet
WP:NF.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 05:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos ( talk) 05:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Expanded title:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Star:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Star:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Studio:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Weak delete per just failing WP:NF. Addressing article format and tagging for concerns was easy enough and while there are some sources available and unused, I do not think there are enough available speaking about this film. Schmidt, Michael Q.
- 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.