Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Temptations of Satan

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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Temptations of Satan

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

Declined PROD: This film has not been the topic of any in-depth discussion in reliable sources. See https://books.google.de/books?id=ajXwxJuYd5gC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555 for example: not even the plot has been described in detail. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Neither of the two references do more than just mentioning it. Slashme (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lengthy coverage here to meet WP:GNG. I've added some sources too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep as a sourcable topic representative of the birth of early American cinema. We do not expect a 102-year-lost-films to have the coverage we might expect of something far more recent. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source that has been found so far that isn't a catalog entry is the book that I listed that says that not even the plot of the movie can be discerned from the surviving "synopses" of the film, and vaguely speculates about what it might have been like. That shows that NFILM 1 (multiple full-length reviews) isn't satisfied, and to date, we don't have a second non-trivial article published about the film, so NFILM 2 isn't satisfied, and certainly none of NFILM 3-5 are satisfied. I've looked at the "find sources" links above, and they just serve to underscore the lack of coverage as far as I can tell. Also, at present, the article makes no claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per WP:IAR, and likely the first criterion of WP:NFO.~~ This was a five-reeler, a feature, according to the American Silent Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Feature Films, 1913-1929 ref. It got a theatrical release. If movie reviews even existed in 1914, it would have received them. If not, well, back to IAR. For it is a cornerstone of WP:POLICY that "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." To insist upon deletion of a century old lost film by a notable filmmaker because it doesn't follow the 'letter of the law' goes against that good advice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it was (and so is) a notable film. There is no need to invoke IAR because the notability guidelines themselves allow you to use common sense. Thincat (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that it's a notable film, but:

the article makes no claim of notability, and
it doesn't seem to have been covered at length in multiple reliable sources.

So I don't see the notability, and with the amount that is currently in the article, why not merge to Herbert_Blaché. It's a short article that doesn't even mention this film except as a note in his filmography, so redirecting The Temptations of Satan there will allow that article to have more substance. If his article becomes unwieldy and overgrown, sure, then it can be split out. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no article ever has to overtly state "this topic is notable because..." and while covered at length is fine, it is not a policy nor a guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is expecting an article to say "this topic is notable because…", but an article about a topic that doesn't say anything about it that makes the reader understand that it's notable, is a problem. For example, there is CSD A7 "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". If you're writing about a topic that's important enough to include in Wikipedia but you don't mention what's so interesting or important about it, that's not helpful to the reader. --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a merge there would be a good idea so thank you for suggesting it. With hindsight it's a pity you didn't go ahead and do that rather than come to AFD. Still, delete is not a suitable step on the way to a merge. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To determine notability, we can use common sense and logic supported by guideline... one of which states it can be determined when a "film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema" and also when a "film features significant involvement (i.e., 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". In 1914, the United States was only then growing into the film creating country it is now, so we have a historic notability per guidelines.. like it or not. And too, we can certainly and logically believe that a film by a notable filmmaker was reviewed and spoken of in 1914 media, without expecting that pre-World War 1 media will be somehow archived online for 102 years. Book refs are expected and quite satisfactory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a unique achievement? No: it wasn't even this director's first feature-length film. Was it a major part of his career? I see no evidence of this. And I agree that we shouldn't get hung up over online sources if book sources exist, but I haven't seen anyone give a reference to another one, online or not. There's room to include the whole text of this article in the director's article, and the film isn't even mentioned there, so why not redirect and merge? --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found the 'explicit claim to notability' argument a compelling one, for that just comes down to semantics -- in my view. That said, Slashme is right that redirects are cheap and I'd have no objection to doing that, until such time if any when other material becomes available. Even the sole book ref states, rather amusingly, that little can be divined about this film from any existing descriptions, so the prospects for any growth here seem very limited, at this time. Neutral Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (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.