Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velipuolikuu

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. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velipuolikuu[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable pointless text of some kind. Quis separabit? 05:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what the nomination means by "pointless text". The subject is a Finnish television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television show on YLE, which is the Finnish national broadcasting company (think BBC, in terms of national importance, although perhaps even more dominating). Was, according to the long and fairly well-sourced , rebroadcasted in 1994 and shown again in compiled form in 2003. The sketches have been published in book format, with comments. It's been sold both on VHS and DVD, which, given that it originally ran in the early 80s, means some sort of lasting importance. The Finnish article has, as far as I can tell, good sources, including discussion of the programme in Helsingin Sanomat (the major Finnish newspaper) a decade after the series was first shown, and a book on the history of Finnish television programming. Notable, verifiable. Someone who speaks better Finnish than I do shouldn't have any problems making this clearly better. /Julle (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and an absolute {{trout}} to the nominator, who when it comes to making this a SK3 case missed it by this much. Yes, stubby article needs refs badly, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albeit the above comments given, the article is written shabbily which can be improved with cleanup but it is written in an editorial, tabloid manner and the lack of sources (not even one given) makes it very not verifiable. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable, if need be drop the bomb and rebuild. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites no reliable sources (IMDB is not one), meaning it fails WP:V. Sandstein 08:38, 14 December 2017 (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.