Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Cambrure

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Cambrure

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

A short film with no indication of notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable work associated with the great director Eric Rohmer, and moreover the first digital cinema production to be presented in a commercial theater, as documented in multiple sources already included in the article. The synopsis could be improved (and we may need recourse to French language sources for that), but why would we not want to have verified content about this little landmark? --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Rohmer. Doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage, just a few mentions. Has many non-notable people attached to it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional substantial coverage is apparent at GBooks, although only snippets are visible: e.g. Cahiers du cinéma [1], Etudes cinématographiques [2], The Independent Film & Video Monthly [3], Cahiers du cinéma España [4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2014‎
Keep a suitable stub that meets WP:NF (see WP:OEN). It makes and verifies notable aspects of itself as a film. Not every film is world-wide box-office blockbuster... and does not need to be in order to be notable. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep baseless nom, the cited (and the non-cited) multiple RS are a clear "indication of notability". Cavarrone 09:08, 19 July 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.