Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Revengers (film)

Add links
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 keep. Sourcing and notability have been demonstrated to meet current guidelines. (non-admin close). -- Banjeboi 15:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. SNOW keep, on the basis of the NYT review, among others. And the principle that sources do not have to be free. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Bejnar to reopen, bercause he thinks the views on which I relied below for my judgment that there would have been no other possible close than keep, are not correct. Let someone else close after the full time. Instead I giv my opinion below in the discussion

The Revengers (film)[edit]

The Revengers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete fails WP:MOVIE, it is not even listed at Rottentomatoes. It does not have two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics. Howard Thompson did the 22 June 1972 review for The New York Times of only 259 words, on the sports page. The Time Out Film Guide said in their 102 word review: it's mainly a matter of guys galloping through forests, over mountains, and through blizzards to the point of exhausting boredom. It won no awards. --Bejnar (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe the nomination is misapplying WP:MOVIE. The fact that this 1972 film is not listed at Rotten Tomatoes has more to do with the web site's limited coverage of older films than with a lack of critical attention to the film. A Google News Archive search suggests that The Revengers did receive wide distribution (although most of the sources found are not available free), and at least one review is freely available online: Montreal Gazette. WP:MOVIE does not say the "two or more full length reviews by nationally known critics" must be available free online, particularly for films released before the rise of the Internet. It should also be noted that three of the cast members were previous Oscar winners, William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, and Susan Hayward, which implies that the film would have received at least some public attention at the time. If Wikipedia had existed in 1972, I doubt an article on this movie would have been rejected at the time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources don't have to be on the Internet. But you do have to have sources. For example the not-full-review by Howard Thompson in the The New York Times is not available without a subscription or payment. The film was released nation-wide, that is not the issue. The fact is that it wasn't even a notable film in 1972. When reviewed at all it was just squibs. For example: The Van Nuys News (Burbank, California edition) of 16 June 1972, on page 41-A, gave it a 42 word squib and a photo. The Abilene Reporter-News of 23 June 1972, page 3-B, gave it an 80 word squib, which 80 words included cast names and the PG rating. The Hutchinson News (Kansas) of 25 June 1972, page 17, copied The New York Times short review under the title "Blunt Movie Stars Holden". The Big Spring Herald (Texas) of June 1972, page 13-C, had a short 360 word review entitled "Star's Wardrobe Is Untouchable" with a picture. It included such detail as Outlay for the star's "wardrobe," at which any self respecting thrift shop would sneer, totaled $46.10 - $30 of which was for a leather vest and a battered beaver hat that late Ted Lewis wouldn't have looked at twice. William E. Scarmento, the drama critic for the Lowell Sun gave the movie a full review, page 33, 20 June 1972. Unfortunately, William E. Scarmento was not a nationally known critic. Also, he didn't like the movie despite being a fan of the studio star system, saying: The Revengers" is a western that offers nothing new in story, characters or scenery. It is a film about which long time movie fans will find the axiom, "familiarity breeds contempt" to be well said. I could go on listing newspapers that gave it short shrift or reviewers who weren't nationally known critics, but I hope the point is clear. --Bejnar (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering how one is supposed to go about determining who counts as a nationally known critic, not to mention determining which critics active in 1972 were nationally known. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not transferred. I doesn't matter that it was her last movie, it wasn't a major part of her career. --Bejnar (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being her last movie most definitely makes it major milestone in her career. WP:NF specifically allows that notability is and can be transferred in such cases when it states "The film features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep with respects to the nominator's good faith, but the film had wide theatrical release in 1972 and commercial re-release in 1979, thus meeting the notability criteria of WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not the criteria for notability at WP:MOVIE. --Bejnar (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, they are... and perhaps you may have missed the attribute listed at Wikipedia:MOVIE#General_principles where it specifically states "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release"... q fact that is easily verifiable in reliable sources. And toward your concern that there is no sourcing or reviews, I am myself involved in improving the stub even as you read this... per easily found sources. A good faith withdrawl of the nomination might be in order. And again, I accept that your nomination was made in the same good faith. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And further note about commercial re-release... this 1972 film, which wwas released on television in 1979, has been commercially re-airing ever since... for instance... 1981,1985, and as recently as 2005... this last 33 years after initial release. Such facts toward notability are searchable, and as the nominator's own discussions above would indicate, WP:NF has allows wider range of notability considerations past "national reviewers" such as Judith Crist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable director and actors and reviewed in the NY Times for God's sake. This new trick of counting words in the review of a nationally-recognized critic for one of the top national papers is a new level of stupidity in Deletionist thought-- which means it's probably the wave of the future. A review by a major film critic in a major paper is a review and that recognizes the notability of the film. Dekkappai (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being released on television is not a re-release of a film. I found plenty of reviews, as mentioned about, I cite at least five of them. There is no dispute that the film was released nation-wide. The problem is that it didn't garner the minimum two reviews by nationally recognized film critics, nor did it meet any of the other criteria at WP:MOVIE. Many movies have been shown on television more than five years after their theatrical release, that does not make them notable. If you have a citation to a reliable source for a actual theatrical re-release in 1979, I would withdraw the Afd. I didn't find one. I have plenty of sources that show that it was shown on television in 1979. --Bejnar (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial re-release 7 years after original theatrical release is a commercial re-release... You seem to be stuck in thinking that "only" reviews can make a film notable... and that just ain't so.
And due to its wide international release theatrical release before its US television release 7 years later, the film is also searchable in other languages and under other titles:
Spain Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Austria Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Denmark Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sweden Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
West Germany Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Turkey Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Finland Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Italy Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
France Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Poland Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Greek Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Notablity guidelines allow that a film with release and coverage in languages other than English, might not always have US American-only reviews. When the GNG is met, it matters not that some sources might be non-English. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find all the sources you like, just be specific and list only substantive ones that meet the criteria. --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect to continue insisting on ONLY "substantive" reviews for a 38 year-old film, as that demand is not per guideline that already accepts it as notable as a film with theatrical release in 1972, commercial re-release in 1979, and repeated release through at least 1985. That has been shown and sourced above and shows notability per WP:NF, even if you think it somehow does not. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please Bejnar, do you believe only 23 minutes was a reasonable time limit to allow a new article to be improved after its creation? Do you believe that AFD is the only response to a new article that is a work-in-process? Might not a tag for sources or improvement been far more beneficial to the project than immediately nominating it for deletion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A release for television is not a commercial re-release.  Sorry.  Otherwise every film shown on television that was made before 1940 would be notable. 23 minutes is irrelevant to this Afd. This was not a work in progress, it came out as fully formed as most articles about William Holden movies. Notability is not transferred and this film had no significant reviews. I searched. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I must disagree again. 23 minutes from creation to AFD, without so much as a template toward concerns is indeed relevent to this discussion, and chaffs at WP:IMPROVE more than a little. Any demand or expectation that each new article must be fully formed and never in need of improvement or expansion is an unreasonable expectation, and runs contrary to editing policies WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:HANDLE, and the deletion policies at WP:ATD. We are a community and as a community we are here to improve Wikipedia. A template would have sufficed quite well... while 23 minutes from creation to AFD for any article with even the slightest WP:POTENTIAL questions the good faith of the author or any editor who might have otherwise come forward to improve the article through regular editing. Perhaps it might have been better to tag and let it be done if possible, or not... than deciding unilaterally that it can not and thus should not be done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with Bejnar on most other issues relating to this AfD, I do agree that a television broadcast should not be classified as the kind of re-release that WP:NOTFILM is referring to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does apply in this case... specialy as the original distributor National General Pictures closed and ceased distributing films in 1973. The product was acquired and then re-release by NBC in 1979. Different company... a new and commercial release. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability standards. Reviews plus this from Google Book Search shows that it at least crosses the threshold. Erik (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is more significant coverage. The Wikipedia article does not need to be able to become Good or Featured; there is enough coverage here for this article to comfortably be Stub or Start. In light of this and interest of other editors to keep, I would recommend withdrawal of this AfD. Erik (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually even WP:NF allows that notability is and can be transferred when it states "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." If that's not "transference", I don't know what is. Oh... and since your comment brought that criteria to the fore, the film was the American film debut of notable German actor Reinhard Kolldehoff... making it a significant involvement "by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This was a major big-budget film with a world-famous director, starring major Oscar-winning actors. It bombed, but it was a notable bomb. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep: The film IS notable per the examples and guidelines provided by Michael. I'm hoping a personal aversion of the film by the nominator is not what this AfD is about. If so this is waste of editors time from actually improving the article—time you seemingly didn't even consider for the creator or other interested editors when slapping the page with an AfD tag 23 minutes after creation. —Mike Allen 07:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not based on the TV showings, but simply on the fact that it was released nationwide in 1972. I remain convinced that all films with wide, commercial releases about which verifiable articles can be written should be considered notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A brief check on Google news search [2] shows results from back when the movie came out. Dream Focus 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I reverted my close, I will give an opinion instead : It's not my field, but it seemed obvious to me that any NYT review, even a moderate length one, is enough for notability of a film DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wording of WP:NF can reasonably lead to this nomination. Determining if a film ". . . has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" (emphasis mine) is similar to the featured article criterion that the breadth of the subject be addressed, but I can see how an objective measure like word count can be used as a starting point. The question of whether a television airing can really fulfill the intent of the film being "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" really seems to stretch the intention of that statement, but again, I can see that there's some merit to the argument. Both are actually reasonable, but weak, arguments, but only one was labeled "a new level of stupidity" during the debate. There's no point in me offering an opinion on the article since it's a very likely keep regardless, but I thought a comment on the tone of the debate was in order.--~TPW 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep (as another editor posted), based on the sources provided, as well as the cast. Easily satifies the notability requirements. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Easily satisfies notability guidelines. It's still Snowing.Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Revengers_(film)&oldid=1138853534"