Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealing Summers

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Summers

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

Does not meet notability guidelines as per Wikipedia:Notability (films). Premiere at Seminci is insufficient: needs to have won award. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 07:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up only trivial references in Spanish media in relation to its filming and a small-ish film festival. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS. --Batard0 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG by having requisite more-than-trivial commentary and analysis... even if in Spanish sources.[1]Rolling Stone seems more that a "brief mention", and these other Spanish soutces are more than tivial. Article could benefit from use of these sources and regular editing, as non English coverage would certainly be expected for even an English language film premiered outside the US. It being unknown here is not a valid reason to delete. WP:CSB anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received coverage from reliable, independent sources. Coverage not trivial (e.g., times of film showing) as illustrated in WP:MOVIE. The fact that the coverage is in Spanish is irrelevant to the question of whether the film is notable. Lord Roem (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (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.