Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TechnoCalyps

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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

TechnoCalyps

TechnoCalyps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, no obvious claim of notability, no real facts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Wow, just over 6 hours from creation to AfD! Please give the creator a little time to breathe. This is a legitimate documentary, rated 7.5 by 180 users on IMDB. This is clearly a notable film, and this article needs some time to be developed. It is already tagged as a stub. Please don't nominate an AfD before the creator has had ample time to build the article. Better yet, follow WP:BEFORE and see how you might help the article first :) Dcs002 (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  07:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Some more good results at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep per just a little due diligence showing the topic (released in 2006 and continuing to screen over the following 8+ years) as having enough coverage in English and non-English sources to meet WP:NF. I note here that it was not at all difficult to show this through regular editing. We now a suitable start class artccle folks which can be further expanded and improved.folks. Y My thanks and apologies to author Curious1i. Brand new articles are more often given a fair chance. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Work in progress that shows facts and notability Ahwiv (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with nominator Jimfbleak. This article was speedily deleted earlier in the day and was recreated. There is "no obvious claim of notability, no real facts" Zpeopleheart (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well.. that "speedy" was because an inexperienced 275 lifetime edits contributor did not properly understand Wikipedia policy toward copy-vio and it was returned only after he was informed and his error was addressed. His WP:AGF edit summary was quite revealing: "2nd attempt -- HOPEfully can avoid Speedy Deletion due to Copyright problems..." So, your speaking about something which no longer exists is not a decent deletion rational here. As for your repeating the nom's disproven statement "no obvious claim of notability, no real facts", that early concern has been addressed through it being shown that this Belgium film has analysis, coverage and commentary in multiple sources... many non-English. Thank you though for your echoing of the nom's opinion of the article pre-improvement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, okay so this "article" was nominated for speedy deletion twice right before it was nominated for deletion. Do not try to interpret what I have stated here, and try to carve my words into something else. I stand by my vote to delete, and I commend the nominator on catching this one after two speedy delete tries! Zpeopleheart (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Two ? ? I see that the author received ONE automated copyvio notice (by bot) and ONE speedy notice (from you). But even were there two actual "speedies" attempted, that matter no longer applies. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

...and a "Wow?" I only wanted others visiting this discussion to understand that a corrected issue with a past submission from an-inexperienced-contributor-willing-to-learn should not somehow taint an unbiased consideration of an improved version. I am myself less able to disregard the many English and non-English reliable sources covering this, and a closer will make the final judgement. Thank you. I commend the author for not storming off in a huff and his being so willing to address early concerns.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply put... In its nominated BEFORE it was unsourced and in a poor article format... and in its corrected AFTER it is now sectioned and properly sourced under MOS:FILM to show a meeting of WP:NF. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2015 (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.