Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comanche Stallion


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comanche Stallion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Previous nomination: Articles for deletion/Comanche stallion

We do not need a crystal ball to see that this movie fails to meet the notability criteria for films:


 * The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Nope.
 * The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. Haven't seen this . . . anyone?
 * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.'' Nope.
 * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Too early. Seems unlikely given initial reception.
 * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Don't think so . . . anyone?


 * The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Nope.
 * The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. Don't think so . . . anyone?
 * The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No suggestion of such . . . anyone?

The fact that a lot of work went into the article, or that it is well-written is irrelevant. This is simply a non-notable film that involves lots of notable people. Note that the alternative criterion that "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." If that is the case, it only argues for the inclusion of a separate article if the information "it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there", which in this case would not appear to be applicable. Bongo matic  14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Ignoring the long-winded comments above, the fact remains that this barely makes a twitch on IMDB, including no links to any reviews. The claims of a link to John Ford are extremely dubious. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? With respects, this is not "dubious" at all. The filmmaker Harry Carey Jr., a contemporary of John Ford, states this himself:,   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This film does not seem to have achieved a theatrical release that I can find evidence of, nor even a home video release three years after its production, nor received any reviews. Lack of any cultural or commercial impact suggests non-notability to me, despite the participation of performers such as James Arness. (By the way, the nom's references to lack of articles appearing at least five years after the film's initial release, or lack of placement in a poll at least five years after release, are irrelevant to this movie, because the movie only completed production three years ago.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The first AfD of 3 weeks ago: diff


 * Keep as article just came out of an AfD 3 weeks ago and even then it was agreed that it could be further improved and expanded over the next few months. I am sorry if there has been no NEW news in the three weeks since it was kept, but the nom KNEW the article had just recently survived an AFD and I am at a quandary with lack of patience. Are we in a hurry here? It was already determined that the film has had a limited release and involved a number of very notable people. And, a good stub can always be made better, deletion is not the answer. Unmentioned by the nom, is a more important part of WP:NF: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", where it can be seen that by it being the final film of several of Hollywood's senior notables, the making of which these notables have dedicated their remaining senior years, in the creating an an homage to legendary director John Ford, it thus meets this criteria.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the previous AFD, and towards the end of it, concerns about notability were raised but mostly ignored. A set of links were provided to demonstrate that the movie existed (which was the main concern at the time), but examination of those links shows the same problem: no reviews and in fact no evidence that anyone has ever seen this film. Mangoe (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the previous AfD have been included in the nom itself? Why hasn't this been corrected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notability was established recently at an AfD and nothing has changed. This movie has enough ntoability to pass AfD, so I ask that the nominator withdraw and please bring one of the MANY no good articles to AfD and save our time from having to reconsider subjects we've recently covered. If you want help finding bad articles articles that lack notability I'm happy to point you in the right direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The original AfD was for the article titled "Comanche stallion" (small "s"). The title was corrected after the last AfD, and may account for the nom not including it... even though he appears to have been made aware of it before making the nom. I am myself more concerned that the nom apparently feels that 3 weeks was a long enough time to wait for improvement after the last AfD, and that his nomination seems more based upon his disagreement with that VERY recent consensus than anything else.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep and Close This is the AfD that MQS is talking about: Articles_for_deletion/Comanche_stallion. It is much too soon to justify another attempt to kill the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the previous AfD, the discussion in that one appeared to focus on whether the movie had actually been made and whether it really was an unrealized John Ford project. Admittedly, it was. But three years after filming, evidence of any theatrical release is vague at best, and it has not even been released on DVD or shown on television as far as I can tell. None of the media coverage, nor even any blog-type commentary, appears to have been written by anyone who had actually seen the completed film. The media coverage seems to have been advance coverage only. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2008 (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.