Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomme Tønner


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Tomme Tønner

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NFILM. Film does not appear to have won any major awards. Non-notable film. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, 12 newspaper reviews currently cited. More can easily be dug up, but these are the 12 biggest newspapers with reviews, so the subsequent reviews would have to come from smaller ones. Geschichte (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why you have not mentioned the links of them to article as the references? Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of hoaxing? If you are keen on links, there is google. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep multiple reliable sources reviews have been added to the article so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are clearly passed so there is now no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you mention couple of those multiple reliable sources? I can't see any links in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:OFFLINE. While links are obviously useful if available, online accessibility is not required, and I see no obvious reason to doubt the sources cited in this article. Lennart97 (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , As you know those citations are not available to be checked out. How can we understand they are exist and correct? Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of assuming good faith. Although asking for confirmation of a few of these sources is reasonable, nominating an article for deletion for lack of online sources is not. Lennart97 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * so by assuming good faith, we should consider everybody's claims for this type citations, as reliable sources! Also because of lacks of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I concluded tgat the film is not notable. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realise that is an experienced admin? You're lack of WP:AGF is disappointing, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are some links to reliable sources coverage here, here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple sources cited in article, as well as additional ones found by Atlantic306. Donald D23   talk to me  15:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The general gist with RS is that the source must be reliable, must discuss the topic/film in some depth, must be independent of the topic, and there must be enough information so that people can verify the information if they wanted to pursue this. The source doesn't have to be online. I say this as someone who has made this same mistake before when I started editing: I came across an article (a draft at the time) that lacked online sources and was certain that they weren't usable. I was absolutely wrong in that situation and got an education on sourcing that day.
 * Now it has happened that some articles were created based on misinterpreted and even outright fake sources. The Chaneyverse is an infamous example of just that situation. However this is not that type of situation - there's enough out there online to show that the film was made, did well, and received coverage. This gives off the impression that more coverage exists that isn't online, which is highly likely given the time period in which it was released, as not every media outlet put their content online and kept it online. It wasn't uncommon for outlets to take stories down and archive them in order to save on server space or similar. This makes it extremely likely that the sources listed here are genuine and not fake. This doesn't give off the signs of a hoax, so AGF should come into play here. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:37, 29 December 2021 (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.