- 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Automation and the Future of Jobs
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Automation and the Future of Jobs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any reviews or any significant coverage of this documentary in Swedish or in English. The film exists, the sources verify that (and I think I'll try to find time to watch it as it seems interesting) but that doesn't mean it is notable. It is simply a UR documentary like many many others; I'm a fan of UR, they produce good stuff, but this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. I thought that perhaps the filmmaker might be notable enough so there could be an article about him which this could redirect to, but I haven't even been able to find sources for that. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence of significant coverage in English or Swedish (Note: there are only 1-2 decent references in Swedish language article, if there were more available then we could use them here.) Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly – I added one of the sources in the sv.wiki article to this one, and so two of the three sources used there are present here, the third one being IMDB so not useful for en.wiki purposes. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - This seems to be an excellent example of the principles that "famous doesn't necessarily mean notable" and "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable". It's a run-of-the-mill production broadcast by a group that does such work routinely. One can as a reasonable person totally find it frustrating that on Wiki we have articles on all kinds of awkward and weird things but not on some genuinely helpful matters, but that's just how it is. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:22, 16 April 2020 (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.