Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldri mer 13!

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldri mer 13!

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I found no significant coverage. The article is unreferenced and only has an external link to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Norway. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Made by a non-notable director and the page is unreferenced with only an IMDb link as you mentioned. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion reason given. I added 5 significant reviews and can get access to 10 or 11 more reviews on Monday. Please never nominate a Norwegian film again without first soliciting help from someone with access to the source library. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte No matter how many sources you found, having no significant coverage is a valid reason for deletion. Being a moot point now doesn't change that. SL93 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, there are links in the no Wikipedia article, which could have been mentioned in the nomination. They may not be significant coverage, but they are useful background for editors voting on the nomination.

Aldri mer tretten in the National Library of Norway 's filmography, appears to be a reliable data base
Aldri mer tretten in Filmfront, crowdsourced, but mentions ratings from Verdens Gang, Dagbladet, Aftenposten and Dagsavisen.
Aldri mer tretten in the Swedish Film Database, appears to be a reliable data base
there is an article about the director at no:Sirin Eide

I also found a Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation page, which says the film "won first prize at the Frankfurt Children and Youth Festival", possibly de:Lucas (Filmfestival). TSventon (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte, what you wrote is dangerously close to WP:HARASSMENT. No editor has the right to dictate to another how to formulate opinions or suggestions, as you did. As to your point about "no valid deletion point given," please reconsider: The three reasons given by the nominator are entirely legitimate ("no significant coverage", "unreferenced," "only an external link to IMDb"). Kindly revisit WP:AGF and WP:CIV. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Thanks for making those comments. I wouldn't even have access to those newspaper sources even if I knew the language. The comment from Geschichte could also be interpreted to say that no one should also nominate an article with English coverage for deletion without access to newspaper sources. That's not how things work. As someone who has participated in AfD for over 10 years with a good streak of matching the final outcome, I don't appreciate being treated in such a way due to one AfD. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, If you are doing more Norwegian AfD nomination, including a Nasjonalbiblioteket newspaper search might be useful. A customised version of the link in the Sofie Cappelen nomination, https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Aldri%20mer%2013%22&mediatype=aviser&fromDate=19820202&toDate=20220603 has 5,361 hits and several of them look like significant coverage, even without attempting to understand the Norwegian. TSventon (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sources cited above by TSventon are simple listings. By themselves, as TSventon says, the sources are reliable but all they have are trivial, small, practically obligatory listings of the film in the National Film Library, a publicly-written website, and the Swedish Film Database. These amount to nothing much but the sources now added in the article after its AfD nomination by Geschichte are indeed proof of notability, seeing as they are non-trivial mentions. Moreover, they are sources listed in Wikipedia: Bergensavisen, Rogalands Avis, Drammens Tidende, Drammens Tidende, and Romerikes Blad. My access to the language was boosted through the assistance of a native speaker, to whom I stand publicly grateful. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed rant and associated handling of it

Are all of you clinically insane?

Order the film on DVD and see it for yourselves if you doubt its existence.

Every person in Norway remembers "Never again 13". (Aldri mer 13). And Sophie Cappelen from Hotel Cæcar.

But rest assured, we will "NEVER AGAIN WASTE OUR TIME WRITING ARTICLES IN ENGLISH" 89.8.149.65 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No one doubts its existence. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification : A request to topic-ban user 89.8.149.65 has been tabled at ANI. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Geschichte for adding newspaper sources; as the IP pointed out, it's hard to find them online before recent years (plus there's a lot I can't access from where I am). Notability is now demonstrated by ample coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in English is not required, though where it does exist it's useful to readers to add it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as newspaper coverage has been found. Geschichte could you also comment on whether Sofie Cappelen, nominated for deletion on the same day, is notable? TSventon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article since nomination including reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2022 (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.