Talk:Uuno Turhapuron aviokriisi

Notability tag
Template:Notability/doc states: Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable (not the sort of subject that Wikipedia ought to have a separate article about). When an article is certainly, hopelessly non-notable, then you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead. Deletion is not clean up. Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work. Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article. This seems to contradict you reasoning for tagging the page. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   08:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Maddy from Celeste: at NPP, there is a backlog of 10K+ articles to be reviewed; it isn't reasonable to expect reviewers to conduct searches to find sources for every new article that's short on them (unless they're nominating the article for deletion, of course); surely that's the creating editor's responsibility. I had a hunch that this may be notable, therefore I accepted it but tagged it as needing more sources to better demonstrate the notability. If you add those sources which you say exist, you're more than welcome then to remove the tag. Or you can just remove the tag, and I'll mark this as unreviewed. Your call. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of this is relevant. The template documentation states that it shouldn't be used for articles where sources exist but aren't used; I've shown that sources do exist, so that tag doesn't apply here. ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   08:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   09:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why not just add those sources, instead of debating this procedural point? Fine, remove the tag, you're entirely at liberty to do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources in question are undigitized print articles from the eighties; I don't have access to them, I only know they exist and have a reasonable indication they provided significant coverage. Maybe WP:WRE could help here? ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   10:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential sourcing
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 sourcing based on the Elonet entry include: The above are cited by Elonet to Suomen kansallisfilmografia 9 (2000). Ljleppan (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 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