Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uuno Turhapuron aviokriisi

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. It looks like sources exist but are difficult to obtain to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uuno Turhapuron aviokriisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD was removed with rationale "Subject is notable. Kansallisfilmografia, cited in Elonet, cites several reviews in major newspapers. The Kansallisfilmografia entry itself could be considered an example of WP:NFO #2."

However, I am not convinced that one entry in a database book about films makes this notable. Other citation is an online database. Nothing else found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Finland. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Copying my comment from the article talk page: Due to the age of the film, online sourcing is difficult: it's too new for the reviews to be in the online-accessible version of the National Archives of Finland newspaper archive, but too old for them to be be available on newspaper websites. In any case, some potential (review) sourcing based on the Elonet entry [1] include:

• Ilta-Sanomat 23.10.1981
• Aamulehti 21.10.1981
• Turun Sanomat 20.10.1981, 29.5.1993, 3.4.1999
• Katso 49/1981
• Kansan Uutiset 25.10.1981

The above are cited by Elonet to Suomen kansallisfilmografia 9 (2000). -Ljleppan (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Ljleppan. /Julle (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I trust Ljleppan's efforts to prove that significant coverage exists but takes effort to read. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:33, 9 September 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.