Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17.5mm film


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

17.5mm film

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article makes no assertion of notability and merely states that film of this dimension exists. Graham (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Assertion of notability is a speedy delete topic. There is quite a bit of information about this film  etc. It was apparently quite popular in post war japan and there is tons of technical information available about it.--Savonneux (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added it to Template:Film formats. That should get some more eyeballs on this. It's definitely covered in a number of Gbook results. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If obscure enough, we may want to merge to List of film formats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it is not. It was quite popular in time, and no it is continued to be used by old equipment and historical techniques enthusiasts. You can even find quite a lot of those in Ebay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was quite a popular format in time. Article is a stub, but I don't think it's a reason to delete it. I'll try to dig and add some information. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the Gbooks results are actually quite plentiful, whatever the state of the article. We only have a snippet view of this one but the Google search results pulls this passage: "17.5 mm film conceived by Pathe Cinema more particularly for the needs of the teaching cinema and for rural dissemination, as indicated by the name "Pathe-Rural" under which it was launched, in 1927..." It seems to have been a notable format of the period. The other language wiki articles have a lot more detail, all readable with Google Translate. The Japanese one is especially detailed -- a 17.5 mm format seems to have been known globally -- though in all cases sourcing does seem to be a problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed "weak" from my !vote. Arthistorian1977 has started improving the article and this one from an (apparently minor) Australian film and television museum indicates that there were no less than eight different types or brands of 17.5 mm film. I daresay there'll be enough notability for an article, if all permutations of 17.5 mm film, in various countries, are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- sourcing and substance are both adequate at this point. Passes GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw – As the article is no longer merely stating that film of this dimension exists, I withdraw the nomination. Graham (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.