Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Fintanaki


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To Fintanaki

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Badly translated article from Greek Wikipedia, its text is mostly meaningless waffle. Film or play seemingly non-notable in the English-speaking world; no reliable sources found via Google or Google News for "+To +Fintanaki +Pantelis +Horn -wikipedia". If this is kept, I suggest it's stubified with existing citations. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  cab (call) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "Non-notable in the English-speaking world" is not a reason for deletion. A notable work from a notable early 20th-century Greek dramatist. Notability has nothing to do with the language of sources. Aside from the sources already cited, by copy-pasting the Greek title into Google and using Google translate on the results (which the nominator should do himself per WP:BEFORE) I see many more articles from Greek media recently like etc., despite the fact that the play is eight decades old. cab (call) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title of this play is usually translated into English as The Sapling or The Young Plant. According to the Encyclopedia of modern Greek literature it was "a considerable hit", The Cambridge guide to theatre calls it "Horn's most memorable play" and, most tellingly, The Reader's Encyclopedia of World Drama says that it "is regarded by critics...as the most significant folklore drama to date". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have flagged this as a rough translation and listed it at the appropriate place, so we might get some help with getting the article into some sort of reasonable shape. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * keep and stubify. Fair enough - I expected to find more source material on Google. Thanks, and sorry to have bothered you. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother :) Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   speak 23:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on sources found, this clearly notable. Against reducing it to stub, that the same as delete(or close enough since over 90% would be deleted).   D r e a m Focus  02:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article's content is barely understandable. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2010 (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.