Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Árvore dos Sexos

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Árvore dos Sexos

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

No reliable coverage online. There is some coverage, but the sources aren't reliable. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

English:(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)

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

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

Comment: It does have some unused Portuguese-language book references available,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] but apparently was never released in the US or in English. This pre-internet film needs input from Portuguese-reading Brazilian Wikipedians, better able to locate and offer hard-copy news sources or reviews that are not online.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There is a lack of online English-language coverage of this film because of the time period and genre, but it seems clear to me that this is notable. The handful of mentions that MichaelQSchmidt linked above (thank you) demonstrate that there is more than enough in print to reach the notability threshold. giso6150 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and translate and use the Portuguese-language book sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is clearly coverage, although not in English. Could do with some help from Portuguese editors to extract from the sources, but appears to have notability as is. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is inherently notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:26, 14 April 2016 (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.