Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cane River (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 Keep; though a bit of a borderline case, consensus is notability via secondary sources is established. I would encourage participants to not engage in meta-discussions on the nature of a nomination or its participants in the future, at least not on the AfD itself. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cane River (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't really seem notable. The sources are really more about the director than they are the film, and 3 of the 5 are obits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per more than sufficiently satisfying WP:GNG, not to mention WP:NFO #2, the first bullet, due to non-trivial articles demonstrating historical notability. A reading of the sources shows extensive details about the film, only part of which are included here. In addition, this was considered a lost film, so there are yet to be reviews. This is more a product of history than a product of art (at this point). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even a director's background is explored (inevitably so in this particular case, really), there is definitely strongly significant coverage about the film as part of that exploration. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: thank you . The NYT article and the discussion about the rediscovery already save it. BTW, fascinating topic: I don't want to do the work for our LSU colleagues, but look at this book, of which I saw at least three or four JSTOR reviews (so it's notable, or its author is), and this. Anyway, movie is notable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, speedy close, trout the nominator. Given the listed sourcing alone, especially the NYT article, "doesn't really seem notable" doesn't remotely approach being a rational argument for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Go ahead and trout him yourself if you like--do you want your precious trouting to be done by one of the admins you say treat you so badly? Sad., if you want to withdraw, that's fine; I don't believe this was a bad-faith nomination deserving a speedy close, but maybe is a better admin than me. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're rather full of yourself this morning, Drmies, aren't you? You're rather plainly more disturbed by my expressed lack of respect for the administrative clique here than you are by actions which dubstantively damage Wikipedia. And let's not forget, while you're throwing shade on me, that you said it was perfectly OK for the notorious sexual harasser Scalhotrod to repeatedly post edit summaries calling me things like "Useless, lazy Editor". But what the hell, some of us animals here are less equal than others, and he was (is?) a buddy of yours. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Buddy? Ich don't think so. You're just being a dick, as usual. You're not treated like dirt--you're just playing the victim. And that's Mrs. Drmies to you. Now go and trout that nominator--don't rely on crooked admins to do your work for you. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly perfect. I'll admit I had to swallow a little something before weighing in here as neutrally as I could. I decided to have faith that this topic was indeed notable. (Also, not an admin!) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but there's a difference between a (possible) bad nomination and a bad-faith nomination... Wut? Not an admin? Isn't it time? Ha, now I remember running into you over White savior narrative in film: that was exciting. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2017 (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.