Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Últimos días de la víctima (novel)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Últimos días de la víctima (novel)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to author. One line article about a none notable book. Suggest redirecting to author. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . No references used. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Satisfies GNG. Has gone through many editions and reprints (an indicator of sales and lasting popularity) and been adapted into at least three films.] Satisfies WP:NBOOK by virtue of having been adapted for film. The notable film in question is Last Days of the Victim, the Argentine entry for best foreign film at the Oscars (which means it was considered the best film made in Argentina in 1982). James500 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Words in square brackets added. The third adaptation is French from 1995; see the article on the Spanish Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So? It's un encyclopedic. And Wikipedia isn't IMDB listing every books adapted into movies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? It satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NBOOKS. The guideline says that it is encyclopedic. The guideline says that Wikipedia does include books which have been adapted into notable or otherwise significant films, which this one plainly is. James500 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Also notability isn't inherited.

Furthermore, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." This article has no reference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Not inherited' is an essay. You cannot use an essay to reject a guideline, you need another guideline or a policy. In this case you would have to argue to WP:IAR the express and unambiguous wording of guideline, and that is generally an uphill struggle. In this case, it should be an insurmountable climb, as there is nothing resembling a good reason to ignore that part of the guideline. As for reliable sources: Here are some sources for the Oscar entry: [1] [2]. There is also a source in the film's article which you have overlooked. Further, the film has coverage in GBooks which satisfies GNG, so it is notable. Finally, a source that the 1982 film is an adaptation of the 1979 novel by Feinman: [3]. Further, the 1979 novel satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. QED. James500 (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I held my tongue on this because I figured if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author, even if the claim that the film is an adaptation of the book is currently unsourced anywhere on English Wikipedia, but the fact that James500 apparently went and looked for a source to verify that claim and came up with a bare GBooks link to an anthology of short fiction that doesn't appear to say anything on the matter[4][5] has tilted me against preserving this article as is. No prejudice against a better standalone article being created if someone can write more sourced content than is already there. And this doesn't even touch on the wikilawyering "essay vs. guideline" remark above, which is complete nonsense (the guideline is a guideline, and not a policy, because it is meant to be flexible and applied based on circumstances; an argument based on the circumstances of this "article" as it stands now is permitted, AFAIAC, to incorporate elements of a widely held editorial opinion like WP:NOTINHERITED). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not use speech marks, the search engine will return nonsense. Instead search for this and this which show that the book clearly states that the novel was adapted for film. Further, this says the same thing (that the film directed by Aristarain is an adaptation of the novel by Feinman) and is available in full page preview. James500 (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first search you cite says nothing whatsoever about the film adaptation, while the second and third say Feinmann, a screenwriter, wrote the film script based on a version of the novel, which actually cancels out my above concern that if the book has been adapted to film then that content can't be incorporated into our article on the author; actually, our article on the author doesn't even describe him as a screenwriter at present, so that's all the more reason to incorporate the content of both this "article" and the source you have cited in this AFD (but made no attempt to use to improve the article) into the main article on Feinmann. Again, if you want to actually build an article on the novel to the point where it provides unique information that wouldn't be more useful to readers if incorporated in the Feinmann article, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't notice that Feinman was the screenwriter (I must be going blind), but ... I'm afraid I have discovered that the book appears to have been adapted twice. The second adaptation is called "Two to Tango" (1988) directed by Hector Olivera: [6] [7] [8]. Variety says it is an adaptation of the book and a remake of the first film (with Feinman as screenwriter again). I have every intention of expanding the article on the novel, it is just that I can't expand 147 articles and deal with the same number of AfDs (some of which are now over), plus new AfDs, at the same time, so there might be a slight delay. James500 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'not inherited' argument is not based on the circumstances of this article, since no exceptional circumstances have been identified. The only way to apply 'not inherited' would be to delete the reference to a significant or notable motion picture from criteria 3 of the guideline altogether for all books whatsoever. Making an exception to the guideline means distinguishing the guideline by identifying some material fact that is present in this case that the guideline does not mention; it does not that we can completely overrule the guideline by deleting part of the guideline altogether, which is what is proposed here. James500 (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptional circumstances are that you claim that because the film, which was written independently by the same author based on the same story he created, was put forward as an Academy Award contender, that makes the novel notable. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, just that it is a valid argument and to talk about "essays" and "guidelines" despite this is unhelpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is in the process of being expanded. It contains accurate, verifiable information that is not included in the article about José Pablo Feinmann, or in the article about the 1982 film. WP:PRESERVE applies to the content of this article. James500 (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book seems to meet our notability criteria and I'm not seeing any satisfactory reason to delete the article even though the criteria have been met. There may be good editorial reasons to merge this article with content on the author or on the films but this should be left to emerge by talk page consensus as the overall editorial situation develops. Thincat (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James500 and Thincat rationales. Notability satisfied. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - going by WP:NBOOK, criteria 3 says "...made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture...". As source material for Argentina's (unsuccessful) 1983 nominee, which was one of only 17 films produced that year,[[9]], I'm going with a weak keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Per nom, Plus an opinion that is somewhat valid but not really: By my understanding, this is on Spanish Wikipedia. If someone is researching this book, chances are they can read Spanish. They don't need an english article on Wikipedia for it, especially a bot-generated one. Before deletion nomination, the article barely hit 2 views daily, usually receiving none. Why keep it?Redditaddict69 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (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.