- 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 delete. After 25 days of discussing, no participant provided any reliable sources with significant coverage to prove
WP:GNG. Also, the claim that the film was selected for preservation in a national archive
is not backed with any evidence.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 10:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Aika tappaa
- Aika tappaa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. Could not locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω ( talk) 19:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete under the premise that Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and the absence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep ( I think it matches WP:NFILM: The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.) I added a reference and a link. In fi-wiki, this was discussed but kept, due to DVD distribution in highstreet stores, and the festival screening. -- Tappinen ( talk) 12:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Selection for preservation in a national archive is good enough. Effectively a certification by an independent WP:RS of its importance. See WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability which expressly provides: "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." [Emphasis added.] Lack of English language sources is WP:Systemic bias problem — and thus should not be dispositive — but does not effect its notability. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep while it is difficult to search and translate sources for Finnish topics, Aika Tappaa does have an entry at fi.Wikipedia and has been selected for preservation in a national archive to meet WP:NF. We need to look harder, not delete because of that difficulty.And yes, in a quick look, I too feel WP:BEFORE was not followed. [1] [2] [3] Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notable film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- alt 1:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- alt2:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment - In my WP:BEFORE efforts, I found -- and discarded -- the sources that are being suggested as evidence of notability. Here's why:
- [4] -- not a reliable source. It's a user-submitted review.
- [5] -- not a reliable source. This is a sales listing in an online DVD store.
- [6] -- this is a database entry. I don't see any evidence that it constitutes "preservation in a national archive". The info page for this site even states that not all the entries in this database are in their collection.
- Υπογράφω ( talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as I suggested in August, the FinnishWiki offers nothing better and my own searches are not finding anything of actual substance hence there's nothing to suggest this can be confirmed as independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources are not great, but they seem factual and independent. The film has been noted. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. After 25 days of discussing, no participant provided any reliable sources with significant coverage to prove
WP:GNG. Also, the claim that the film was selected for preservation in a national archive
is not backed with any evidence.
Vanjagenije
(talk) 10:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Aika tappaa
- Aika tappaa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. Could not locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω ( talk) 19:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete under the premise that Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and the absence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444 ( talk) 07:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep ( I think it matches WP:NFILM: The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.) I added a reference and a link. In fi-wiki, this was discussed but kept, due to DVD distribution in highstreet stores, and the festival screening. -- Tappinen ( talk) 12:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Selection for preservation in a national archive is good enough. Effectively a certification by an independent WP:RS of its importance. See WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability which expressly provides: "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." [Emphasis added.] Lack of English language sources is WP:Systemic bias problem — and thus should not be dispositive — but does not effect its notability. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep while it is difficult to search and translate sources for Finnish topics, Aika Tappaa does have an entry at fi.Wikipedia and has been selected for preservation in a national archive to meet WP:NF. We need to look harder, not delete because of that difficulty.And yes, in a quick look, I too feel WP:BEFORE was not followed. [1] [2] [3] Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Notable film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- alt 1:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- alt2:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment - In my WP:BEFORE efforts, I found -- and discarded -- the sources that are being suggested as evidence of notability. Here's why:
- [4] -- not a reliable source. It's a user-submitted review.
- [5] -- not a reliable source. This is a sales listing in an online DVD store.
- [6] -- this is a database entry. I don't see any evidence that it constitutes "preservation in a national archive". The info page for this site even states that not all the entries in this database are in their collection.
- Υπογράφω ( talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as I suggested in August, the FinnishWiki offers nothing better and my own searches are not finding anything of actual substance hence there's nothing to suggest this can be confirmed as independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources are not great, but they seem factual and independent. The film has been noted. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.