Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three for Happiness

: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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

=[[Three for Happiness]]=

:{{la|Three for Happiness}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Three_for_Happiness Stats])

:English:({{Find sources AFD|Three for Happiness}})

There is solely a single short sentence in the article, as far as I'm concerned that's not enough to tell if the article is notable. VS6507 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

:;Multinational releases:

:Original Serbian:({{Find sources AFD|Za sreću je potrebno troje}})

:East Germany:({{Find sources AFD|Zum Glück gehören drei}})

:Spain:({{Find sources AFD|Tres son multitud}})

:Hungary:({{Find sources AFD|A boldogsághoz három ember kell}})

:Poland:({{Find sources AFD|Do szczescia potrzeba trojga}})

:Alt English:({{Find sources AFD|Three's Happiness}})

Keep as it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_for_Happiness#Plot now expanded] to give us some context. Let's spend some time looking through non-English sources for awards and reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment the reason I nominated this article is because I couldn't find any reliable sources in Serbo-Croatian, and that single one you added is a primary source from the official website. VS6507 (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep I've just expanded the article with Ivo Škrabalo's views. The film was distributed internationally, was screened at international film festivals, winning some awards, and was the subject of scholarly analysis, so I'd say keep. GregorB (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

:* Well done. The search for sources is difficult... but not impossible. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the additions to the article; looks like there's enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Gongshow talk 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Time to close as keep, not to relist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:22, 10 April 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.