Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirits of the Jaguar (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spirits of the Jaguar

Spirits of the Jaguar (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)

Non notable TV documentary, Found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Nordic Nightfury who prev nominated it. –Davey2010^Talk 04:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per last AfD Nördic Nightfury 09:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but that last AFD with counted votes by only two persons (yourself and this nominator) resulted in no-consensus, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST . Most notable ever? Nope. But notable enough through coverage and commentary in suitable independent reliable sources? Yes. Sorry, but not using available sources of commentary and review does not mean automatically non-notable... it means the project benefits from work not deletion. [1], [2] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries aren't reliable sources atleast as far as I'm aware, Found a book or 2 but other than that there's nothing to establish notability, FWIW I've sourced far less known stuff than this so it can be done however in this case it can't be done because it's not notable. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the commentary or analysis is in reliable sources, WP:NF can be met. We do not judge the content of the commentary or analysis. Only the existence of it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's a NYTimes review. Combined with the BBC Atlas one from above [3], I think we have minimum notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. I am sorry, but this NYT review is anything but such, it is a mention in passing, 1-2 sentences, and I am not even sure the article looks reliable. Since we cannot find anything except a single review on DVDTalk, I am afraid it fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). A merge to BBC Atlas of the Natural World may be best. Frankly, probably all of the series parts (episodes) fail notability and should be merged there. If we add their refs together, they may be sufficient to keep the article on the documentary series. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons given by Schmidt. Ouseriv (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.