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 speedy keep. Closed early as as noted below the nominator hasn't even bothered following WP:BEFORE, plus the mass nomination of articles doesn't really help here, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O Trem da Morte[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm growing tired of your nominations. Why don't you try to expand them yourself? Frankly I'm tired of wikipedia at the moment and the laziness of certain editors who can't be bothered to collaborate. Considering it is a silent film from Brazil, there is coverage in several books here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have grounds for keep? Why would anyone expand an article with no reason offered to believe that there is anything to be found? What good reason is there for starting an article without suggesting that it is worthwhile as the subject of an article? Kevin McE (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The onus is on the nominator to show the article has no potential. Kevin McE failed to undertake the minimum Google Books check that is expected before submitting to AfD on notability grounds. As Blofeld has pointed out, there are plenty of books that discuss the film, which is clearly notable. The check would have taken no more than a minute, less time than creating this nomination, and would have avoided wasting editors time. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have evidently failed to read the nomination. I passed no opinion on notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the onus. If an article falls foul of speedy deletion criteria, it is grounds for deletion. If someone wants an srticle to exist, they need to ensure it meets WP:A7, Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: You need to read WP:A7 again. No mention of films. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid delete rationale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 16 September 2014 (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.