Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dauntless: The Battle of Midway

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. The most persuasive argument in the discussion below is that this fails GNG, and combined with the facts that the argument had significant support and it was not adequately refuted, I assess there to be a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film, none of the sources included in the article refer to the film, they are simply sourcing content about the film (they all predate the film's production), this film is lacking significant coverage by independent sources as needed for a stand alone article, per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 17:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A fully developed film article centered upon the key maritime battle of World War II. It has an extensive infobox, an informative introductory paragraph, detailed plot synopsis, a full cast that includes two well-known actors, Judd Nelson and C. Thomas Howell, production details, notes, inline cites, bibliography and four external links. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And once again, your Keep argument does not actually address the issue here, the film has no significant coverage. None of the citations refer to the film, they refer to the battle. The notability of the subject of the film and the notability of the cast does not determine the notability of the film. Please review WP:NINI. BOVINEBOY2008 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four external links, a bibliography and three citations all from sources that predate this 2019 film. Roman Spinner have you located any coverage which actually addresses the subject of the article, which is a 2019 film? Nobody is arguing with you about the notability of the battle that it is based on. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator appears to have misunderstood what kind of sources are needed for a Wikipedia article about a movie. Not one of the citations or external links here actually refers to the film. (Even if a link to the film's IMDb page were added to this article, that would hardly be enough to establish notability; see WP:NFSOURCES.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Nothing found on my search supports notability. Kolma8 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reviews do exist but I'm not sure about where the community stands with the reliability of these sources; Chicago Reader, Naval Air History and That Moment In Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Naval Air History is a blog review, which we should really avoid blogs in general as citations. The first unusual; the source is a good source but the review is written by someone who only has one listed review and I cannot find anything else they have written. I don't think we can consider this a published review. The last is one that I found as well during my initial search, but the source does not seem to be one that is widely-recognized as a review source, which is something that WP:NFO includes when considering reviews as a sign of coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 13:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Chicago Reader "review" appears to be a social media-type posting rather than a proper review by a critic from the publication. Note that even though the posting is apparently referring to this film, the film's title is never mentioned on that page, nor are any actors or crew members identified, which would be odd for a real movie review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tried my best to find reviews as per the three that I have shared above but I have to agree with Bovine Boy's analysis of them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my research, director and screenwriter Mike Phillips has a close connection to one of the figures in the film, Ensign Thomas Ramsay [1]. The film is also a tribute to the real-life heroes, Captain Norman Vandivier and Ensign Lee Keaney who participated in the battle of Midway. Despite budgetary concerns, an effort to faithfully depict capital ships, naval aircraft and historical figures from the period was, at least from a CGI application, more realistically depicted than the ham-handed effort in Pearl Harbor (2001). After action reports from participants in the battle, Lt Richard H. Best, Lt. Earl Gallher, Captain George Murray and Admiral R.A. Spruance elevates the film from the "psuedo" account in Midway (1976). In order to get a reading on whether the film was accurate from a historical perspective, I asked for it to be screened by Ryan Toews, an acknowledged expert on the period, especially the Mitsubishi A6m Zero fighters that are prominently seen in the film. Although there are minor errors in aircraft colour schemes and markings, the film held up remarkably well. One of the dilemmas of establishing a film's notability during the current pandemic was that a low-budget film such as "Dauntless: The Battle of Midway" would have likely been destined for a limited theatrical release but was forced into distribution only into the home media market. Since the article was developed, a critical review has appeared by Editor/Writer David Duprey [2]. The historical accuracy of the story and that the film had garnered over 80 viewer reviews on IMDb as well as from critics has to be considered. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 1 August 2021
- According to this article and IMDb, this film was released in the USA on 6 September 2019, two months before the first COVID-19 outbreak anywhere in the world. Hence, the pandemic could not have prevented this film from receiving a theatrical release on that date. Whether that 6 September 2019 release took place in theaters, streaming, or direct to DVD has not been clearly explained yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - Regardless, the film would have had to overcome some major financial barriers to go into the "traditional" theatrical release. As stated above, there are redeeming aspects to a small, independent film that featured "name" stars and had a story to tell. Have any of the naysayers actually seen the film and compared it to films such as "Midway" (1976), a film that is generally considered a "good" war film, but engendered an entire critique on its inaccuracies and "flubs" which I documented in an article for another publication. Compare the two and "Dauntless: The Battle of Midway" swings "above its weight". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 2 August 2021
    - Remember, this is not an assessment of the quality of the film, it is an assessment of its notability. Per WP:GNG, we establish notability through the evidence of significant coverage by independent sources. This is the standard you should be showing. So far, we have one online review that could be considered coverage by an independent source (although one could argue that since the website is pretty new and not widely sourced, it may not be significant). BOVINEBOY2008 15:18, 2 August 2021 (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.