Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pancho Tequila

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pancho Tequila[edit]

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

Mexican film from 1970 with no references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Standard searches were done and article PROD'd, which was declined by article creator. Sending to AFD. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Pure laziness. I removed the prod because it's notable, it just needed expanding. In future User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR try searching in google books before nominating or prodding. Oh and please change your user name, it's utterly ridiculous and offputting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look at the spanish language sources you added. I checked one already and it was a single mention of the title.[1] The others may be better. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alphabet soup-named nominator... go read WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and understand WP:COMMONSENSE... something released 20 years pre-internet need not remain in the hardcopy headlines, and there is a reasonable expectation that film with lots of notable Mexican actors would have had coverage 45 years ago. Due diligence, dude... due diligence. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in full agreement with Dr. Blofeld. Being unsourced is NOT a deletion rationale when sources are so easily found available with a little due diligence... even if Spanish. Per WP:HANDLE we fix the fixable, not toss them out of sheer laziness. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2015 (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.