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 incubate. In reaching this determination, I've disregarded all procedural arguments, which are not very helpful in the particular posture of this AfD. There's more than enough evidence that the subject is verifiable, but, despite the fervent arguments to the contrary, no actual evidence of notability has been presented in this AfD. It may well be that they are in printed sources in Danish - and thus difficult to locate - but it's been three weeks, counting the last AfD, and nothing has come forward, so I accord less weight to those arguments. Taking into account the totality of circumstances - especially that, as Black Kite put it, it seems there should be sources - I think incubation is the best way forward here. T. Canens (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crash (1984 TV series)[edit]

Crash (1984 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm renominating because the last AFD was closed due to the beliefs of some editors that significant coverage exists but (considering WP:NRVE), they seem to have been mistaken. Claritas § 12:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Per notability is not temporary. If this programme was notable enough to have a TV series in Denmark in the 80s, it was notable. If that show was to debut today, no doubt there would be lots of web sources available. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:NRVE, you need to find sources to verify the claim that it's got significant coverage. I don't see any. Claritas § 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep- THIS CLOSED AS A KEEP in FIRST AFD YESTERDAY - give it a chance people, sheeeeeesh.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing user said: "No prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". Verifiable evidence of notability is requested. Claritas § 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"quick" doesn't mean one day. I request that you withdrawn the nomination for 14 days, then you can always renom.--Milowent (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources establishing notability, and none were found during previous AfD. Verbal chat 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I wouldn't oppose userfication to BarkingFish below either, who feels he may be able to source it. Verbal chat 15:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: no sources uncovered. Every link in the articles that are in the foreign-language Wikipedias has gone dead as well. There's just not enough material to build an article out of.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy keep. Prior afd closed as keep yesterday; "quick renomination" is not "immediate renomination." There's no pressing reason to rush this. There doesn't appear to be any doubt that the program existed, and no reason to believe that it didn't receive nontrivial print coverage on its original broadcast. There's so much work that needs to be done here (eg, BLP cleanup) that demanding that articles like this be made highest priority seems abusive at best, and there are rational people who'd call it downright foolheaded. I would also note that the indignant nominator has recently created a batch of unsourced articles like Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla, making me wonder why the animus towards this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano is sourced, the early Islamic monarchs aren't sourced simply because the content was split from another unreferenced page, as was Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott. Every single other article I've created (there's a list on my userpage, which I presume you've been using) is well sourced. All unsourced would be immediately sourceable if someone challenged their notability, however, unlike Crash. Claritas § 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per same reason as last one, "appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources at all, not even in its country of origin, failing WP:N". Existing does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep because a renomination less than 24hrs after a 'keep' is plain rude and riven with agenda. As other have mentioned, why not give it a fortnight? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - a television series that aired in three countries, and also has an associated book, is notable. I'm quite sure there are reviews of it, and articles about it, just (1) they'll likely be in Danish, Norwegian, and/or Swedish, so not as accessible in English libraries as some, and (2) they'll have been published in 1984/5, so are not necessarily online. This is one of the times when WP:NRVE needs "to be treated with common sense" (which is also a quote from WP:N, for the I-require-chapter-and-verse crowd). --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your keep rationale (I'm genuinely interested if there is). It only lasted one series, and despite being in screened in three countries and having a book (which isn't uncommon) there seems to be a paucity of WP:RS that can confirm anything about this program, even on the other language wikis. Verbal chat 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - was the show popular? If yes, then it can be notable. However, not all popular shows can be notable. This show may be little known. The article can be improved. Even thought there may not be a lot of reliable sources. Let's give it another shot. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep or incubate. I'll restate here what I already mentioned on WP:ANI. I'd like to apologize for not making myself more clear in the first AFD. I close a lot of AFDs with little participation as "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" per WP:NPASR. That was not what I intended to do when closing the first debate. It had been relisted once, had only one delete !vote aside from the nom and had enough participation to make a call. It was obvious that the call was not going to be delete. (well, perhaps an admin could have deleted it under "admin's discression" and watched as it got overturned at DRV) I recognized that most of the keep !votes were rather weak and the nominator's concerns weren't refuted but I also agreed with the last 2 keep !voters about the possibility of there being sources in Danish and/or offline. That's why I closed it like I did. By "quick" I meant "weeks" instead of "months" as is the normal custom for keep closes. I should have been more clear about that as "speedy renomination" has a clear definition but there's no mention in any policy, guideline, or essay of what "quick renomination" means. Furthermore, the article is not a BLP so there is no harm (and yes I know about WP:NOHARM) in allowing the article to stick around for a while to give those who want to keep it a shot at finding sources. However, if the consensus here turns out to be "delete" then incubation should be considered as an option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per many of the above arguments. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - If it takes a week or two, I'll find something to source this, be it on the web or in print media. One way or another, it's gonna get sourced if it kills me, and that is a distinct possibility :D BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with WP:NOHARM though, and I don't see why some people aren't able to give others a chance to find sources. If it can be userfied, please apply it to my userspace, and I'll refer it through some of my contacts at DR (Danmarks Radio) and see if there is anything printed from their TV guides or in independant media to source and verify it as notable. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • (edit conflict)If the closing admin decides to delete (which seems likely, imo) then they will probably see this and move it to your userspace directly. If not, then simply ask them to userfy it. I don't think there'd be any problem with that. I don't think I should move it as I'm involved. Best, Verbal chat
• Keep - In Wikipedia:Notability (films) one of the inclusionary criteria to consider, and which applies here, is: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." The Transhumanist 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly doesn't apply. It is normal for TV shows of this type to be so distributed, and costs to be spread. However, if you have a WP:RS which shows it is "notable for something more than merely having been produced" then that would be great, please tell us. Verbal chat 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy Keep This AfD was opened the day after the previous AfD closed as Keep. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SpeedyKeep - an immediate renomination is completely disruptive and uncalled for. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Immediate renomination was in good faith and not disruptive, due to a misunderstanding of the closer's reference to "quick renomination" on my behalf. See [1] for an ANI thread concerning a short-lived closure which contains more discussion on the issue. 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I've amended to keep. One day is still too short for a renomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete and userfy. I have searched but not been able to find references asserting notability. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have relisted this for one more week. This will have given the article over three weeks to be sourced. It looks as though it should be sourceable, even if not in English language sources - but as yet, none have been provided. The one existing source does not refer to the program itself. If this reaches 28 June without sourcing being provided, I can see no reason why the closing admin should not close as delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Ridiculous that so many people are asserting "I searched and couldn't find anything" when sources will almost certainly be Danish and 25 years old. Wikipedia has a huge bias towards online sources as it is, no reason to make it worse. One good editor has promised to find sources for what seems to be a prima facie notable topic, so I don't see how it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete this for a week or two until that happens.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. After this amount of time, "surely sources exist" is unpersuasive, given that they are not in the article. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• weak keep per Ron Ritzman. There is the one book and I don't see the issue with waiting a bit to see what can be found in paper-land. Igoring the POINTY nature of the nomination, the lack of sourcing at this point is troubling, but WP:IAR exists for a reason... Hobit (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was nothing pointy about this nomination, and the book is the book of the show, it isn't a review of the program or show notability at all. The lack of sources and valid keep rationales mean this article will be userfied/deleted unless RS is added soon. Verbal chat 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find the AfD immediately after the last to be pointy. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The circumstances around the renomination were my misunderstanding of Ron Ritzman's "quick renomination" as equivalent to "speedy renomination". Assume good faith. I didn't withdraw my nomination because I still believe there is a very strong case to delete this unless someone can produce a reliable source. Claritas § 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete While this may be unpopular with some inclusionists, I don't see that the article meets WP:V. I've done a 30 year Lexis-Nexis search, including non-English sources, and I cannot find a single reference to the exact title. All procedural nonsense aside, I don't see anything to substantiate this as a real TV series. Userification and a pursuit of offline sources seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well [2] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from Danmarks Radio, who made the show in the first place, it's a primary source. We still need those reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No disagreement, but saying that WP:V is met (in response to Jclemens). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The series exists [3] and it was aired on television [4]. It is an early work for Danish award winning actor Peter Steen. He won best supporting actor at the Bodil Awards and the Robert Awards in 2004. Both are major film awards in Denmark. The series has a page on each of the Scandanavian language Wikipedias that the show aired in. This article is handicapped by being about a Danish television programme on an English language website and being from an era before the internet. Movementarian (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What sources establish notability of the subject of this article? Verbal chat 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dammit Verbal. I knew you'd be the first one to call me out on my flimsy argument. I got nothing, but I don't speak Danish. This article was never given a chance, it was simply nominated for deletion. WP:N suggests that articles not satisfying the notability guideline be tagged with ((notability)). We have an editor that has stated he will be actively researching for this article, give it some time to develop. If it hasn't been touched in a few weeks, then renominate it and I'll be there to argue for deletion. Movementarian (Talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I aim to please ;) See the note at the top of the AfD. I would support userfication. Verbal chat 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am having a problem letting this one go. Television series that were broadcast nationally or internationally are generally notable. We can't find sources at the moment because of the dual handicap this article faces. Common sense tells me that if the series exists (which we can establish) and that it was broadcast internationally (which this one was), it is notable despite the lack of references. I think WP:IAR might be applicable here. Movementarian (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per my previous arguments. --Bensin (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[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.