Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getaway in Stockholm


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Getaway in Stockholm

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails Notability (films). A few odd blog posts about this straight to DVD documentary in Estonian and Swedish, but nothing close to sustained, significant coverage from major critics or other sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per available sources showing this series of films covering a series of Swedish events receiving coverage enough to meet WP:NF, and the article itself as sourcable. While most of the sources are non-English, and the article has not been improved, those are reasons more to fix addressable concerns and not to delete an arguably notable topic. Notable to Sweden is fine for en.Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Autocar said "...As for the Getaway in Stockholm movies, I'm not quite sure what to make of them". Not exactly a ringing assertion. In Notability (films) were looking for things like "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". None of these films were widely distributed, and I don't believe those links you gave are reviews by major critics. So far we've only demonstrated existence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "attributes" you refer to are NOT requirements. They are set in WP:NF to encourage searches for souces, just as "nationally known critics" is a subjective term set to encourage diligent searches, and consideration of theatrical distribution (NOT a mandate) is yet again an "attribute to consider" that is intended to encourage diligent searches for verifiability. Atuocar was offered as a magazine source to refute a claim that this series was covered only in "odd blog posts". I do not have access to the magazine's complete text, but even the snippet view appears indicative that the topic is addressed in more detail than the one sentence you quote. Also NOT being "odd blog posts" are such coverages as the news report by TV2 (Swedish), the article in Dziennik Wschodni (Polish),and the one in  Aftonbladet (Swedish) (all speaking toward the topic in some manner), and the article in Dagbladet (Norweigian) which tells us how a simular Getaway in Oslo was inspired by this series. We have enough coverage in non-English sources found in a search, to indicate the topic being worthy one note, even if of folks filming their actions while racing their cars illegally. Notability is dependent upon verifiability, and even the least of sources that offer the mandated WP:V need not themselves be SIGCOV. The terms V and SIGCOV should not be confused with each other, as while related, they mean different things.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're posting links to brief news items of 100 to 200 words. Two of the links above are the same text translated into different languages; a press release perhaps? Wikipedia does not include articles about films that have received such paltry attention. There are tens of thousands of such DVDs made every year. The fact that it's straight to DVD should be enough to raise eyebrows, and the lack of major media doing serious reporting is the nail in the coffin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm posting links...even to brief news articles... as "someone" mistakenly claimed the only information was in "a few odd blog posts" and such an inadvertant error of statement needed to be addressed, just as User:Cavarrone below addressed the mistaken claim that the film did not receive distribution. WP:SIGCOV does not require that articles dealing with the film must be of some great length, and even 100 or 200 words can be sufficiant to meet WP:GNG if the film is dealt with directly, in detail, and not in a trivial manner. And WP:Notability (films) does not require world-wide distribution for an series of independent, underground films. And I note that the TV2 news report is not trivial in the least. Many projects go straight to DVD and, even if more difficult for them, still sometimes manage to receive enough attention to be seen as worthy of notice. This is an broad-spectrum encyclopedia. We do not restrict inclusion to only English-language topics, and we do not restrict inclusion to only the "most" notable. And that tens of thousands of such DVDs may not meet inclusion criteria is on them, as this discussion is not about those others. We are simply dealing with this one... here... now... per correct application of guideline and policy.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. GBooks hits and GNews hits support the claim of notability. More secondary coverage can be found via Google (like this). About the sentence above that "None of these films were widely distributed", I'm Italian and, for what it counts, I can say that this movie-series has received here a nation-wide promotion and distribution ([]). --Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2011 (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.