Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djungelboken


 * 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. Notability established at prior AfD discussion. Notability is not temporary, and no argument has been put forward to suggest the prior evidence of notability was incorrect or that the prior AfD conclusion was wrong. Even without the prior AfD, sufficient sources are shown here and in the article itself to establish notability. Any future AfD should address this and the prior AfD and demonstrate how these conclusions are flawed. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Djungelboken
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable play. Nothing on Swedish Wikipedia about it either. sv:Djungelboken (olika betydelser). Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The previous AfD from 2012 was a clear "keep" outcome, and I have linked to it here above using {{subst:oldafdlist|The Jungle Book (Swedish play)}}. From that discussion it is worth quoting :
 * and I do not see the WP:JNN argument being a "strong reason supporting deletion", cf. WP:LASTTIME.
 * I have added a few more references with significant coverage readily found online, both from reliable, independent sources:
 * but there are more sources available, e.g. coverage about the Norwegian premiere in 2008, and several of its later productions in e.g. 2011 and 2014. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG is met here. The lack of an article on sewiki is not an indication of lack of notability, see WP:OTHERLANGS. — Sam Sailor 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but there are more sources available, e.g. coverage about the Norwegian premiere in 2008, and several of its later productions in e.g. 2011 and 2014. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG is met here. The lack of an article on sewiki is not an indication of lack of notability, see WP:OTHERLANGS. — Sam Sailor 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * but there are more sources available, e.g. coverage about the Norwegian premiere in 2008, and several of its later productions in e.g. 2011 and 2014. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG is met here. The lack of an article on sewiki is not an indication of lack of notability, see WP:OTHERLANGS. — Sam Sailor 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Same reasons as last time. /Julle (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.