Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Sharkey's Last Game

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The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ericleb01 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sharkey's Last Game and associated pages

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, as there are no reliable sources available to confirm its notability. Was PROD'ed, but notice was removed because "being directed by [D. W.] Griffith is strong evidence of notability". This is contrary to what NOTFILM says: "2. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

As we cannot establish a reliable source, there is no indication that this was a "major part of his career". This AfD will be accompanied by many more articles which reflect on this same principle. I've tried hard to find sources for all of these articles (I've found one so far, rendering the article notable), but for most, to no avail. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are possibly many more, but I just wanted to nominate the following pages first, per above (collapsed for your convenience):

{{Collapse|1=

With respects, I have uncollapsed this section to aid in editor's better understanding of the scope of this discussion and to unhide the proffered Find sources Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|2=Articles part of this AfD}}

Speedy keep, speedy close, and a healthy round of trout slapping for the nominator, who not only seems to believe that cursory internet searches are the best way to assess the notability of hundred-year-old films, but also hasn't bothered to check out Google Books, which provides as its first hit on the title a reliable source declaring that this was the debut film for a notable actor, thereby satisfying the cited section of WP:NOTFILM. [1] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, you (User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; didn't sign your post, btw) are the one who closed the inital PROD. I left two messages on your talk pages, and after waiting about an hour, I came here. You can't say you didn't have it coming. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your book source, great! Give us the page number and we're all set for that article. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz provided a link to the page; however, coverage of the film is trival. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find enough reliable sources for this article, and sadly being the first film of a notable actor is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE ALL Blatantly fails WP:NF#General principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that the first hit in Google Books is a reliable source. Although I agree that it's reliable, the notability guideline states that it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources". The Google Books result is a passing mention, thus not suggesting notability. Also, the film has not been the subject of "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inapplicable criteria, suitable only for more recent films. The "nationally known critics" you might wish for were not even born when these films were made. And "full length reviews" is an attribute of the modern era, intended for judging modern films. Few if any films received more than a few sentences back in 1909. And for THAT time and era, those sentences DID comprise the review length expected for that era. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources for every article listed above and find no significant coverage. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your major error is in the erroneous presumption that the GNG is the only guideline and that the internet is the only place to find sources. Deleting articles on 100 year old films simply because the newspapers and magazines that covered them 100 years ago are now dust is not worthy of Wikipedia. Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so we are supposed to presume that everything 100 years ago had coverage? My major point is that if it's not found today, it probably wasn't important back then. Or at least, if we can't find that old coverage today. You can't tell a murder suspect he's guilty of a crime if you don't have evidence for it. It doesn't work that way. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing "everything". We're discussing these films nominated here that have made it into the enduring historical record. So yes, for THESE we may safely presume that thay had some sort of coverage, as that's the common sense that guideline encourages. You own decision that sources-now-turned-to-dust could never have exzisted in the first place or they'd still be around, and then limiting your own searches to a spotty check on the internet only, as if the net were the only source that editors are to ever consider, is not common sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're using circular reasoning. You're claiming that the films above are notable because they are in the "enduring historical record". When I ask for proof of this historical significance, as I cannot find evidence for it, you say that we should not rely on today's information, and instead keep in mind that the films might have been reviewed in the past. When I ask WHY we should be exempting these films from proper verifiability, you respond saying that they are historically significant! This begs the question once again: why are they notable? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below, you have been given dozens of sources for dozens of these films, showing their being in the enduring record, and written of in books offering the POLICY mandated verification. But back up here you act as if you have not... and continue your quest to undo the roots of Amercican cinematic history. Below you have even acknowledged that so far some have been shown to be improvable (through the quite properly diligent and honorable WP:AFTER of User:Lugnuts), and yet you come back up here with eyes and mind closed to guideline's encouraged common sense in the treatment of films from the birth of one countries cinematic industry. It is NOT common sense to demand that a 100-year-old film MUST be treated in the same manner and for the same reasons as modern-day big-budget blockbusters. Guideline acknowledges that it is not. I find your reticence to even consider these and their historical contributions to the growth of a film indistry or the careers of those notables who recieved their starts in these films, and the entire manner in which you have conducted this mass slaughter, to be quite disruptive. AFD is not for Cleanup. Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Did Lugnuts WP:CANVASS you into coming here (as noted by this), seeing that you are a "film and television actor and fine arts model"? Because now I have reason to believe that most of your arguments are fuelled by some sort of WP:COI with the film industry, and that your "Speedy keep" is therefore invalid. I recommend you step back from this AfD (even though it should be closed per my withdrawal), because most of your arguments seem to indicate you are bent to include as many instances of "American cinematic history" as possible. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOAH. That sort of bad faith accusation is totally unacceptable, and acts to attempt to besmirch both Lugnuts and myself. That is NOT how AFD discussions are to be done. I was not "canvassed" to speak in a film discussion... no more that your asking Protector of Wiki how to create a mass nomination canvassed him. I am a member of Wikiproject films and quite regularly contribute to film-related deletion discussions. And I have been contributing to article preservation for a while now, solely in my continued efforts to improve Wikipedia for its readrs. And your suggestion that my contributions to film articles is a COI borders on an indefensible perssonal attack. I suggest you yourself please "back off", as my record in contributing to the project is reasonably decent. I have written 27 articles, and have assisted in improving over 300 others so that they may serve the project, as well as working on essays to make this a more user-friendly environment. Do you have any similar accomplishments? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always a problem with these group nominations - some articles clearly meet notability guidelines, and one may fall a little short. And it's very hard to find online sources for films that are 100 years old! I'll try to address them individually:

Gentleman Joe - Some sources [2], but at worst it should be redirected to the Harry Carey filmography as a plausable search term.
None of these books review the film, but merely confirm its existence. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy reading some of the 27 book results offered by Lugnuts, it is seen that there is more than enough that address the film and/or its actors in detail to expand and source that article. It a "keep and fix". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that there is and proving that there is are two different things. I saw many mentions but no reviews or significant coverage. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go to your public or university library and look just a little harder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Unseen Enemy Directed by D. W. Griffith, starring Lillian and Dorothy Gish (along with Carey). Tons of WP:RS [3]. Quite simply put, Griffith and Gish were one of the most important director/actress collobariations in cinema history, and if they were alive today an knocking out films in this decade, their articles would be kept. Compare Lynch/Maclachlan, Herzog/Klinski, et al. Also per film notability: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." And it was the Gish sisters' on-screen debut!
With that rationale, I wouldn't oppose, but it still needs to be sourced properly. This might do the trick. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source added. It would still pass the notability guidance I refered to without it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perfect. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. Another one that was fixed when the AFD was used to force improvement. How will you now remove it from your lengthy list? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you going to stick around here simply to trash my decision to bring this to AfD or are you going to DO something to help out? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two Daughters of Eve per An Unseen Enemy. sources.
I don't see a review of the film anywhere, just mentions of it. Saying that it was Gish's second film is not notable. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not look at the 45 book results deeply enough. Enough of them address the film and actors in enough detail to allow this article to be expanded and sourced. Or is it your contention that because ithas not yet been done the article should be tossed? WP:NOEFFORT is a poor reason. Using an AFD to force cleanup or delete as the only options to improvable articles runs afoul of WP:DEADLINE, and ignores that Wikipedia itself accepts that it is WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I repeat: "Claiming that there is and proving that there is are two different things. I saw many mentions but no reviews or significant coverage." Give me a book and page I may have missed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "A closed mind sees only what it wants. Your apparent mindset runs completely contrary to WP:POTENTIAL. How many of these have you yourself REALLY tried to improve? Or perhaps you might wish to spend some reading the instructions at WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friends Starring a whos-who of silent film stars, sources [4] and also screened as part of a Biograph studio retrospective in 2007, meeting point 2 of FILMNOT with "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Passes the "The film features significant involvement..." bit citied above.
Wouldn't be opposed again if a source showed your re-screening was right. Significant involvement is still bollocks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs added. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the most experienced in AfDs, but I do know that forum sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again - I said refs, not ref. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that still doesn't seem to cover the re-screening, which is what you were contesting to be the source of notability. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another one improved with cleanup being forced by this AFD. Lugnuts is becoming my hero. So much to do and so little time. And hey... the nominator has promised us a few dozen more. I do not think they should be added to an AFD ale=ready-in-prcess, as that will reduce the time those new additions will actuallyave to be worked on during this overwhelming threat of unneccessary deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Near, Yet so Far Another Griffith/Pickford vechile. Sources [5] and again passing the "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Per above, I do not see any source which shows the significance of the role for either of them in any of those books. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already shown an poor understanding or WP:BEFORE and an inability to actually evaluate offerd sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Feud in the Kentucky Hills Again more Griffith/Pickford work with sources [6].
Found a somewhat notable mention, but only in the form of where it was made and what films were made at the same time. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Aisles of the Wild Not actually tagged for deletion! Anyway, another clearly notable Gish/Griffith co-lab. Sources [7].
My bad, I must have skipped it over; quite tedious to do. Still no sign of "clear" notability, not even in the books about Griffith and Gish. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The One She Loved Stars Gish, Carey, Pickford and Lionel Barrymore. Source [8], and per the "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
You can't just slap the names of the actors and say "it's a significant part of their career", especially when (still) no sources show it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown no ability to judge what is significant part of an actor's emerging career or not, and a tremendous lack of good faith in anyone else's efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Painted Lady Even more whos-who with Gish (both of them), Barrymore, Carey and Blanche Sweet. Sources [9]. Passes per "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Finally, SOME sort of review here. Up to AfD to decide if it's a notable one. Still shows no significance for the actors per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your own poor WP:BEFORE shows an inability to judge what is significant for a 100 year old film. Expecting them to be judged in the same manner as big-budget, highly-touted blockbusters, is not using common sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heredity Carey, Barrymore and Griffith. Sources [10].
Found nothing per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you did not look hard enough, nor have been able to make any claim to having been to a public or university library, that "you" found nothing is expected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gold and Glitter The Gish sisters and Griffith again. Sources [11]. More of "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Perhaps here, though it seems to be more of the author's opinion than a factual claim ("...this is the first of Griffith's movies in which Lillian looks truly beautiful, her face and her mass of curls..."). Up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anther save by Lugnuts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brutality Another Gish, Carey, Griffith vehicle. Henry B. Walthall and Lionel Barrymore are in there too. [12].
Found a brief (two sentences) mention of this film in a book about romance in the silent era. Up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another save by Lugnuts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Hero Gish/Griffith, per the dozen examples above. [13].
My lord! I may have found a review! Still needs a page number as there is absolutely nothing you can pull from just a Google Book listing (and it's the National Board of Review, so it might not even have anything about the film at all, AFAIK) with no description. Per above, not notable until then. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visit your library. As a resonable presumption of coverage exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Burglar's Dilemma Per above. [14].
Found the book again, but same problem occurs. Still not notable per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Cry for Help Per above. [15].
Not notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The God Within Blanche Sweet again, with Griffith, Barrymore, et al. [16].
Found a book about "eloquent gestures" in film mentioning it, but other than that, not notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More that you did not "find". For what it is, when it was, plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three Friends Sweet, Barrymore, Carey, Griffith. [17]. Note that this article's image was a featured pic of the day too!
Congratulations, but this is the film which has the least book and web sources per your links, let alone one that renders it notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another save by Lugnuts. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Telephone Girl and the Lady Mae Marsh, Carey, Barrymore... [18].
REVIEW, finally! Seems like a good review right here, but again, that's up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been contextually expanded and cited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that works fine. Is it possible to withdraw a nom? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... whch is the problem when you toss so many salvagable articles into one pile. Now its gonna be an all-or-nothing... or you have forced some overworked admin to go through each sub-discussion one-by-one and make a call on-by-on. You may have meant well, but now we have a big mess. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for being a bit more helpful in this. I tried to contact you after the first two PRODs to help settle this out of AfD, but nothing came out of it (probably were not awake).

Yes, not awake/at the cricket. And ignoring your uncivil comments. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments?? Please show me where I was being uncivil, as I was definitely NOT trying to do so at ANY point during this entire process. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implying on my talk page that I don't have a life outside WP (as you seem to do), and the above comment of "Significant involvement is still bollocks". Please correct me if I've misunderstood that one. Maybe you could help by adding the sources you agree with in the text above. Lugnuts (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page comment was implying that I have a life, and at the time, I didn't want to spend it scouring through Harry Carey filmography (I later found D. W. Griffith filmography) to look for notable articles alone. It was a sarcastic comment. As for bollocks... err, I may have pushed it too far, yes. I probably should have used "nonsense", but I wasn't really aware that it was an expletive word (I'm a native bilingual between French and English, a little more French). Sure, I'll try and help out with the sources. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel that this AFD needs to be re-thought out. Mass grouping on this level has to have alot more weight towards the nominator's arguments in order to get some sort of consensus. Looking at the arguments so far, I think we would be derelict without re-thinking this Afd. Pmedema (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had initial doubts of just throwing this into AfD, and that's why I went to get an opinion at the Help Desk. There didn't seem to be an alternative (perhaps there should, and noted at the AfD main page for future reference). If you want to give suggestions, go right ahead. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Rethought" is too kind; the nominator made no meaningful effort to check for sourcing here (skipping GBooks and GScholar entirely), declaring that he was "not exactly willing to verify the bulk each article for an AfD" [sic]. [19] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I spent nearly two hours looking for sources (unfortunately there's not much I can do when the books on Google Books don't show a preview), and I added one source to a Library of Congress entry for one film. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Nothing would be gained with a hurried bloodbath of this group of articles herded en masse to the slaughterhouse. We all have to be cognizant that internet-based sourcing for early film is going to be sparse and the process of documentation a slow one. Forcing the defense of a mass of such challenges in a one week period is unrealistic. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment: This isn't a "hurried bloodbath", especially when there are no "internet-based" sources for these claims. A few (as noted above) seem to be okay, but simply saying that a film is notable because thing and thing acted in it does not render it notable. I'm not a deletionist, but nor am I an inclusionist; especially when there are no sources. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, offering a dozen and promising dozens more to all be resolved in 7 days, specially whan that 7 days includes a US national holiday when public libraries and university libraries are closed and their books, microfilm, databases, microfische, or acrhival and reference hardcopy souces are thus unavailable, is indeed a "hurried bloodbath" that stikes at the heart and soul of Project Film and American cinematic history. And you would do well to understand that "significant coverage" for a 100-year-old black & white film will not be anywhere near the same as coverage for a recent boxoffice blockbuster. Guideline does not demand nor expect that the historical Bill Sharkey's Last Game have the same quantity of coverage as does Batman Returns. For historical matters, all that is absolutely required in verification... and that verification need not itself be substantive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, what would you have suggested I had done? Individually nominate a few of these articles every week until the end of the year? If someone creates a pile of articles which someone else finds should be deleted / redirected, is it their fault that (1) there is no other clearly designated process to accommodate such a nomination, (2) that the AfD process only lasts seven days, (3) that the nomination JUST SO happens to be on the final day of a holiday weekend (which is somewhat irrelevant since the creator seems to be available), and (4) that other editors perceive the move to be a "hurried bloodbath"? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ALL Deleting films from early cinematic history simply because the pre-internet newspapers that wrote about them are now dust, or that the film magazines that wrote of them did not survive two world wars, does an incredible dis-service to the encyclopdia. This is not as if these were films from some indie from last year that were never seen or written about. For Hod's sake, we're talking about films 100 years old... films that represent the birth of an entire industry and ushered in the careers of dozens of notables. Who wants to claim that some of these are not in a national archive? Who wants to claim that no University ever has used these representative examples of early American cinema in their courses on early American film and cinema history? Who can claim with a straight face that these films and actors were never covered by popular press 100 years ago. I have a realistic and reasonable presumption that such sources did exist at one time, even if some are dust now. Sheesh. These films singly and as a group represent a unique accomplishment in cinema (its birth), are milestones in the development of film art (US cinema), and contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema (US cinema). These films features significant involvement by notable persons and are major parts of dozens of careers... not a doubt in my mind, even without having driven into Los Angeles to the USC Film Library. And hey...these films were successfully distributed domestically in a country that was not then a major film producing country, as the US film industry was barely born in 1909, and were produced by this country's equivalent of a major film studio (and some of these studios are themselves now dust). NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you mind reading my replies above? They were written as you were writing this. I agree that films with a past have notability and most have built the industry, but that doesn't mean that every old film participated in making that happen. If someone wants to change the inclusion guideline to reflect your opinion, then by ALL means, go right ahead. I'd be glad to drop this AfD immediately. But right now I'm just following what is written. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is written is the use of WP:Common sense and the knowledge that policy understands that there are exceptions to guideline. So sorry... and as well meant as your mass deletion efforts might be, I recommend that any Admin step in and close it speedily as destructive to the project and to Wikipedias efforts to preserve cinematic history. We have a reasonable presumption that ALL of these films were written of 100 years ago. Guideline recognizes this and does not insist that coverage continue into infinity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not speaking about every old film ever made, just the dozens you wish mass deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Could you clarify the purpose of your cited guideline? All I see is "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That doesn't apply here. I don't personally think IAR applies here either, but IAR is subjective. Let's see how things go from here. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most minimal of common sense indicates that Bill Sharkey's Last Game was covered in multiple newspapers and magazines in 1909, as was the various principle's participation in that film. Even early fillmakers neeeded to get coverage of their products or go broke. That the newspapers and magazines that covered that film are now dust, or if still existing 100 years later might not have online archives of 100-year-old articles is EXACTLY why WP:NTEMP was drafted and it most specifcally does apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of a notability guideline for films if we are just going to assume that they all have had coverage? Without evidence of such? I'm sorry, but that's not common sense, and as someone who strongly believes in verifiability, I can't personally accept that as a rationale. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the purpose of WP:NTEMP having been written up in the first place? It is to explain to editors, including you, that coverage need not exist into infinity, and to expalin that even Wikipedia understands that hardcopy sources can vanish over time.... even time-before-the-internet. And why would each and every guideline encourage common sense? It's not as if we are speaking about forgettable films from last year, where a lack of sources after a diligent search would doom them to extinction. We're speaking about films from the very birth of American Cinema... films that predate the internet by nearly a century. Does your common sense tell you that they could not have had coverage? And in your diligent serch for sources, did the libraries you visited before your nomination not have reference materials about early films? Did the universities you visited not have early films as part of their courses on American cinema history? Did none of the film archive vaults you visited have these films saved for posterity? And why did you not approach Peoject Film about your concerns? You mention above that you went to the Help Desk for assistance... but all you did there was ask about how to mass nominate articles? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close - I suggest the application of WP:IAR here and close this Afd so that a little more WP:BEFORE can be applied. Pmedema (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what, withdrawn. This nom really isn't worth the time and effort. If someone can make a little notability appear out of these sources, then whatever, yeah, WP:IAR. HOWEVER, I really think this type of nomination should be outlined somewhere on Wikipedia, as I found the guidelines and instructions very unhelpful as to what to do in this type of situation; let alone what a completely new editor would think of doing. Perhaps there should be a limit on the number of nominations in one AfD, or maybe a time limit extension, I don't know. But this just seems very messy at this point.. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - From what I see here, here, and here, non-admin closures are allowed when withdrawn. Please notify me at my Talk page if I did it incorrectly. Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2010 (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.