Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How It Feels to Be Run Over
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other argument advanced for deletion. Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How It Feels to Be Run Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The article is currently unsourced and I was unable to find any reliable sources on the film. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Given its great age I guess it could be claimed that all such surviving films are notable. That said, we need some proof of this. Put a couple of solid references on it and I'll switch to keep. If not, maybe an article about the studio would make more sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I an happy to call it a keep now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This film is described in a surprisingly (to me, at least) large number of books about film history and related topics. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notable as very early film, as evidenced by non-trivial coverage in several independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and Close. With respects to the nominator, 1) we do not expect a 111-year-old film from the very inception of the film industry to have the coverage we might expect from a modern day blockbuster, and 2) your google-foo is (I apologize) woefully lacking, as it was not the least bit difficult to find sources which cover this film directly and in detail in Goggle Scholar Google books and even through a general search These multiple sources, many offering historical and contextual evalauation of the film, can be used to further expand and source this aeticle film. This is a stub that can grow. And while quite decent of User:Lambiam to add a couple of the MANY sources available that the nominator could not find, notability is not dependent upon sources being IN the article, only that they be availabe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt; a search engine test in print sources (via Google Books Search and Google Scholar Search) shows plenty of results. Significant coverage does exist from reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt; no good comes to the encyclopedia from deleting verifiable historical information like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As evidenced above, significant coverage for this film exists in multiple reliable sources. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Gongshow Talk 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2011 (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.