Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmörnen (3rd nomination)

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 merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. Sandstein 08:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filmörnen

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

This has been to AfD twice before, but received next to no responses, so were closed as no consensus. Hopefully we can get a consensus this time. I couldn't find anything to verify its notability, from article or Google search. It has a Swedish Wikipedia article, but that suffers from similar issues with sourcing and notability. Boleyn (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no sources of any sort now (it was tagged with {{unreferenced}} in August 2008 and still has no sources) and there don't seem to be any reliable sources for this article which would make it meet WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Common misunderstanding, but not correct, the article has sources. {{Unreferenced}} only applies when there are zero sources, and general references and external links are sources. Even if there were no sources present in the article, it is not an argument for deletion, please see WP:UGLY. — Sam Sailor 23:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. Fails WP:GNG, but the information can and should be merged. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Geoffrey. Crystal clear merge candidates should not be brought to Afd: it is a waste of everybody's time, especially when there is so much other valid Afd work. Mais oui! (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mais oui!, what is crystal clear to one person is not to the next, especially when sources are likely to be in a foreign language. I'm working through those which have been waiting 9 years for resolution, a thankless and complicated task - there's not really any need to criticise just because I suggested a different solution. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Värmlands Filmförbund. Our deletion policy encourages alternatives to deletion, and when an article as Filmörnen receives ~2-3 edits per year it is safe to assume that a bold merge would have been met with little opposition. I have added a few sources, removed a dead site from external links (nothing worth linking to archive.org), and updated another external link. Värmlands Filmförbund in itself needs secondary sources, so we could hope that a WP:ATD-M outcome of this discussion brings us closer to that goal. — Sam Sailor 23:59, 8 February 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.