Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitil

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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitil

[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)

Russian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources. --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid nomination. First, it is not a TV series. It was widely shown in the movies. Second, there are reliable sources in the article, and dozens more can be added.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Would you mind providing links to the WP:THREESOURCES that you believe best demonstrate that this movie and tv series passes WP:GNG? TipsyElephant (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[1] [2] [3]. There is also a book here, but apparently it is not online.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the sources in the article and the sources provided by Ymblanter demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. However, I can't read Russian so I'm using Google Translate and I'm unfamiliar with the sources so they may be unreliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like RIA Novosti is listed at WP:RSP as "No Consensus", and the comments state that "RIA Novosti was an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti." However, the conversation appears to be from 2016 and is considered stale. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not about politics.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources listed, as well as in Russian article, seem to very clearly meet the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2021 (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.