Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloak-and-dagger film
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 delete. A redirect to cloak and dagger can be created, but is probably unnecessary. —Doug Bell talk 13:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cloak-and-dagger film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is a neologism apparently made up by the creator, a literal translation from the German de:Mantel-und-Degen-Film. To boot, "cloak and dagger" has a different meaning than "Mantel und Degen", it's about spies and agents and has nothing to do with musketeers and the likes. There are some Google hits for "cloak-and-dagger-film", (the number jumped from 255 two weeks ago to now 700, however most of them clones and only 69 true hits (see [1])), but I can't find any evidence there of this term being used for what the article says, and not even for a film genre at all. Hence, I had proposed the deletion, however the article's author, User:Wittkowsky, apparently German just as I am, objected. H005 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well, if you think "cloak and dagger" in literature is something completely different you are free to add content of that kind to the article. But that missing is absolutely no reason to delete the article, it is just an incomplete article. And another "well", Google finds 618 entries with Cloak-and-dagger-film -wikipedia (so without wikipedia-clones), not 255, with "Cloak-and-dagger film" -wikipedia 693 entries and with Cloak-and-dagger film -wikipedia about 200.000 (as of today). Seems to be "a bit" more relevant than you thought. And not being used for movies? Well, have a look at the first sentence at [2] or [3] and even the New York Times uses this term ([4])--Wittkowsky 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the multiple sources provided by Wittkowsky (especially the three single page links) refute the justification for deletion that "This is a neologism apparently made up by the creator". -- Black Falcon 19:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna go Merge and Redirect to Swashbuckler here, since the films herein seem to be also included under such a description - and at least to me, the term is new. I'd defer to a keep, though - not a bad article at any rate. --Dennisthe2 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor rephrase of my vote here, Merge content to the Swashbuckler article, and redirect to Cloak and dagger. --Dennisthe2 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I had pointed out above, there are currently only 69 true Google hits, not 618. Of the three links provided by Wittkowsky, two are of obscure websites run by Maltese and French authors - apparently no native speakers of English. And two of the three films discussed are not of the swashbuckling type, but about spies - just as "cloak and dagger" suggests.
- After all, a couple of proper occurrences of such a term on the WWW does not justify an own article in Wikipedia.
- I am fine with renaming the article to a name that is widely used for such a genre - if such a name exists, or integrating its contents somewhere else. -- H005 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...erm, what User:Metropolitan90 said below. =) To say this myself would be repetitive. --Dennisthe2 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is a mistranslation, as this is not the way "cloak and dagger" are used in English (or film history). --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cloak and dagger. There may be some usage of "cloak and dagger film" to mean "Three Musketeers"-type films in other languages, but in English it generally refers to contemporary spy films. --Metropolitan90 22:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the examples provided by Wittkowski. How's that, given he thinks they are arguments for the reverse? Well, note the New York Times reference is specifically a usage to reference a spy film, not a swashbuckler, and the others are translations from the French. That indicates strongly this is not an English language usage. Merge the content to "Swashbuckler". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the NYT-link (and the others) was/were provided to prove, that the term is actually being used for movies and was not made up. IF the content of the arcticle does not match some contemporary movies, it is by no means the best matter to delete the article, but to improve it and add content, that states (and explains), that this term also is being used for other kinds of movies. It is, like on many other articles, just a beginning and not the end. (@ H005: Please don't tell the Maltese they can't speak English. That's like telling a Scotch he's an Englishman). --Wittkowsky 10:22, 13 February 2007 (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.