Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searching for Skylab

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) Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Skylab[edit]

[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)

Non-notable film, sources don't indicate notability (non-professional review and advert for opening) BOVINEBOY2008 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this 2019 documentary is a notable addition to the space documentary collection, is even now well sourced per its topic, seems to have had a NASA and astronaut involved opening, and is now one of 28 films listed at Category:Documentary films about the space program of the United States. Skylab is one of the major NASA programs of the 1970s, and to finally have a full documentary on this program of course fits within encyclopedic notability standards. Why not just put a citesneeded tag on it rather than go for a full deletion? I really dislike coming to these deletion discussions for things which are obvious notable keepers and just need a source or three. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a worst-case outcome would be a merge to Skylab#Documentaries, where it is already mentioned. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the request to the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should a "non-professional" review be excluded? When did policy change WP:RS like this? Also, el Reg is professional journalism, even if not usually reviewing films. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As a film, it needs to be review by professional reviews to be considered notable, per WP:NF guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a guideline, not a hard rule. There are plenty of completely un-notable films which have been professionally reviewed, and plenty of notable documentaries which didn't get a professional review in the first three months after their release. And, for all I know, it has been professionally reviewed. You're talking about a lack of a reference to such a review, not the non-existence of such a review. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where (even in WP:NF) does it require reviews to be professional in order to convey notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFO: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" widely distributed"

So if it's not Disney, it's not notable? There's a whole world of specialist cinema, arthouse for one, almost any documentary for another (this is a documentary) which will never achieve the distribution of Toy Story, but are certainly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's sufficiently notable. If it isn't, there are a whole lot of article on less notable films which ought to go. I'm moderately annoyed that the director himself has made some edits, but they seem to be innocuous. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I expanded the article with what sources I could find using a search engine, however there isn't much. Some of these sources were not independent (i.e. a primary source from a museum which screened a preview and a review/summary from the NSS which happened to have been written by the film's technical advisor). While I would like to see more and better sources, at the very least a review/summary from Space.com, a Future plc holding which specializes in spaceflight news and is frequently syndicated by major networks, seems to show reliable and independent coverage as outlined in the wp:GNG.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I've read and searched about this and I think it can do better in future, the sources are not that strong but good. It should be considered that the subject is very specific so for that the sources are good. As this is new a new documentary in future it can bring more sources and coverage, hopefully, Best. - Blake44 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and well sourced. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2019 (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.