The following discussion is an closed 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. Peaceray 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vimazoluleka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- film reviews, evidence of noteworthy film awards, production coverage, that sort of thing.
But the only footnotes here are an article about the director's death which briefly namechecks this film without being about the film in any non-trivial sense (and doesn't even support the statement about the film's postproduction that it's footnoting), a press release from the film's own production studio, and a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get the film over GNG all by itself.
Further, even though the film was released in 2017 according to IMDB and the dating of the footnotes agrees with that, the creator wrote about this as if it were an "upcoming" film slated for release in 2024 -- and although I've corrected that nonsense already, there are other statements here (some completely unsourced, and the postproduction claim that isn't supported by the director's obituary) that may also be in question if they can't be properly verified. (I've also had to remove two other footnotes that had nothing to do with this film at all, and were present solely to falsely assert, because of the misrepresented release date, that it would be a "posthumous" work for cast and crew who died after 2017.)
As most coverage would likely be in Spanish, and the film actually came out long enough ago that the very low number of GNG-worthy Google hits might not be the whole story, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with good access to databases of Venezuelan media coverage from the 2010s can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but especially given that the article contained significant falsehoods that just IMDb alone was able to smoke out, it really needs much better sourcing than it's got right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz. The article needs cleanup. I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En. -Mushy Yank. 05:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article says it is about a play (or a musical? This is not clear), but the infobox is a film infobox showing the date of the film's release, and full of incorrect info, if this is an article about a stage work. The article is a mishmash of useless and conflicting information, if it is about a stage work, and it contains a bloated table showing the entire film cast, but little information about the stage work's production. It would be better to delete this article and write an article about the play (or musical?) instead that makes some sense. I tried to do some rewriting on the article to reorganize it and try to make sense of it, but all my edits were reverted without, apparently, considering any of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Afds are not for cleanup and I am the one who reverted your single edit to it because it was imv detrimental to what I thought was an improvement of the page; I thought that especially during this Afd your edit was making less clear what the page is about and how it is notable. The musical play is notable, and I have, since nomination, made it the primary subject of the page, which your edit made unclear; the film being its adaptation, the fact that it's covered in a section with an infobox does not seem to be a problem that deserves deletion. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I think you can argue whether the sources pass sigcov thresholds, but to me it seems like the play meets GNG. The movie might not, but I don't think that's relevant to whether the adaptation is covered or not here in relation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I see bunch of online articles in Spanish which are not included within the article and I assume it at least fulfills WP:NBASIC. Here are few examples 1 2 3 4Instant History (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]