Talk:Duel at Sundown (Maverick)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jack Kelly .jpg
The image Image:Jack Kelly .jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion
This episode is notable for a number of reasons. 29-year-old Clint Eastwood's role as a cowardly and villainous gunslinger and murderer, featuring an epic fistfight with Garner's character as well as open cowardice when he runs away from a showdown at the end of the episode, is utterly unique for his cowboy canon and his career. The episode is included on the the most recent DVD issue of Eastwood's late-1990s movie about an aging gunslinger (the one that won the Best Picture Oscar) because of the tremendous opportunity it offers to see Eastwood play an utterly evil and cowardly villain. And Eastwood's part is second only to Garner's in screen time during the course of the episode despite the billing. In addition to that, it's an extremely entertaining episode, another reason, in addition to Eastwood's performance, that it was the first one to be released as a DVD for the Maverick series: it's a showcase for Garner and the series as well as for Eastwood. This episode is a real curiosity for anyone interested in Eastwood's career and will be sought out in the future for that reason, and needs to exist on Wikipedia for research purposes to that end. Skymasterson (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There need to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this particular episode. The actions that Eastwood's character takes or the interest that someone might have in the supposed aberration of his role do not qualify the episode as notable under the relevant guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At some point, on top of anything else, sheer common sense applies. This is an extremely noteworthy episode from the standpoint of Eastwood's oeuvre, which is why it was included as an extra on the most recent DVD issue of Unforgiven, and people are going to continue to look it up in Wikipedia as a result long after you and I are both dead; if you manage to have this article deleted, another will inevitably spring up in its place eventually.  I looked you up out of curiosity and noticed that you enjoy combing through Wikipedia and deleting television articles (why not put that energy into making a contribution instead?--vandalism is for children) but this episode's importance seems so self-evident that I'm surprised you would try it in this case.  Skymasterson (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)