Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plays With Devils

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. Aside from the nominator, the only argument for deletion addresses the film's IMDB rating. Not a valid inclusion criterion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plays With Devils

Non-notable film. No references support notability. Can find no relevant g-hits. Prod removed without improvement. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned up the original article somewhat. The play is definitely notable; the film adaptation perhaps less so. See, e.g., Google search for the Czech title: the automated translations give a good idea that it's one of Drda's most significant plays. On-line English-language sources are a bit harder to come by, but the play is frequently mentioned in books on modern Czech theatre. There should be plenty of material to flesh out the current stub. If the article is ultimately kept, it should be moved to Playing with the Devil. Hqb (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Lacks notability and seeing its age, it will probably not gain any in the future. Only 55 people have rated it (as an average 6.5 film) on IMDB so its just a blip. Remove as there are millions on non-notable films in the world. Parkerparked (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Uh, since when is the number of IMDB ratings a reliable indication of notability? Death of a Salesman (1951 film), an English-language film from a major studio, nominated for 5 Oscars and winner of 4 Golden Globes, has been rated by just 294 IMDB users; yet hopefully no-one would argue on that basis that it's non-notable. And in any case, the article also covers the original play, which has been the subject of in-depth commentary by multiple independent sources, including many non-Czech ones, as pointed out above. Hqb (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. "Recent-ism" is a real problem sometimes on Wikipedia. For new software, films, music etc, Goggle is a great test of notability. For Czech plays from sixty years ago, not such a good yardstick. IMDB ratings don't mean anything as regards notability, as they are just the opinions of random people. So keep or at least merge with the author's article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue search for 1945 sources for the play and 1956 sources for the film. Found this on cs.Wikipedia: diff. Found these online: [1], [2] [3], [4], [5]. Unfortunately I do not read Czech nor have access to 1945-1956 news archives. Historical? I believe so. Reliable sources for the rebirth of theater arts in post World-War II and then film arts in Communist controlled Czechoslovakia? Likely. This one need input from Wikipedians knowledgable in the language. With respects to the nom, what took place and where it took place will make English sources dificult, but not quite imposible to find. We need some help from WP:CSB. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Schmidt. Iowateen (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -can clearly be expanded from Czech wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's clear justification. Save for expansion by experts on Czech literature.--Junius49 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is underdeveloped, but the film is very well known, it's one of the icons of the Czech cinema. An interesting and notable topic and a very poor article. No reason for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't take any great linguistic ability to see that this 64-year-old play has far more coverage in reliable sources available, even on the Internet, than many of the recent pop-culture subjects that get automatic notability passes[6][7][8]. I'm really getting to despair of these Afd nominations based on guesswork, rather than any serious examination of sources. Just because one person doesn't have access to, or understand, the sources it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia shouldn't cover a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (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.