Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ride a Wild Pony
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The result was withdrawn -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ride a Wild Pony (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)
Unnnotable film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N Prod removed by creator with statement that "it is notable" without providing any actual proof. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did no research to prove that it is not notable--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide proof that Collectonian did no research. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alan - talk 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. According to WP:NF, a film is notable if it has "is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". This film easily meets that criteria. See here for a list of well more than two such reviews. The problem with older films - particularly non-American, non-classic - is that the internet didn't exist back then and reviews of the film at its release weren't published online at the time, or put there afterwards. But, existance before the internet doesn't preclude notability! The reviews mentioned above were published in print (remember that?) and are from independent and reliable sources including the LA Times. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its usually best to include some more terms, like the director's name, and not the word review (as it is often in a book without relation to the text) in Google Book results[1]. Almost all of the results appear to be only directory type listings of his films, with only a few seeming to specifically say anything about this film. Those results seem to indicate that this article is factually incorrect, as most seem to state the film is Australian, not American, though some also claim it is a Disney work...hmmm -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: It is an American film - my mistake. It's based in Australia, but it's a Disney production. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its usually best to include some more terms, like the director's name, and not the word review (as it is often in a book without relation to the text) in Google Book results[1]. Almost all of the results appear to be only directory type listings of his films, with only a few seeming to specifically say anything about this film. Those results seem to indicate that this article is factually incorrect, as most seem to state the film is Australian, not American, though some also claim it is a Disney work...hmmm -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. You've stated that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, yet had to rely on a non-reliable fansite to source its plot? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The point I was tried to make above is that it's difficult to find reliable sources online - they all appear to be in print (and only online as links to archive catalogs), which makes referencing anything difficult. My edits to the article weren't an attempt to rescue thearticle, simply a good faith attempt to give it some flesh. The references were merely where I sourced the information and their poor quality probably underlines my earlier point. I did, however, manage to find a 1976 NY Times article republished online, which served as a good replacement for the less-than-satisfactory fansite and, perhaps, lends some credibility to a keep position. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. You've stated that this topic has significant coverage in reliable sources, yet had to rely on a non-reliable fansite to source its plot? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep for an easily improvable article per numerous available sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid reason for speedy keep to claim that "before" is somehow an available source. Provide actual evidence of sources please. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Film was reviewed in the NYT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone else reviewed it? One review is not enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Yes, the LA Times in a 1976 article which is included in Film review digest annual, Volume 1 at page 270. You can see that here (first on the list), but to read the whole review, one would have to buy the book or get a copy of the LA Times edition of 25 December 1975. Also looks like it was reviewed in Variety's Film Reviews: 1975-1977 (fourth on the list) and The Monthly Film Bulletin in 1976 (third on the list), although I don't know if these were significant publications at the time. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone else reviewed it? One review is not enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:43, 4 February 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.