Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dry and Thirsty


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dry and Thirsty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Could not find significant coverage in RS. There are some Google Books results, but all the ones that I could find were passing mentions. buidhe 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. buidhe 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST: I expanded the article and added more sources, including two reviews:
 * A review of the movie in Motion Picture News, February 28, 1920.
 * Another review in The Film Daily, June 6, 1920.
 * "Popular Players in Newest Gayety Comedies" from Moving Picture World, March 27, 1920.
 * Information on actor Tom Dempsey in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies, with Biographies of Players and Personnel by Brent E. Walker, McFarland & Co (2010)
 * Clown Princes and Court Jesters by Kalton C. Lahue and Samuel Gill, A.S. Barnes (1970)
 * Griffithiana (film journal)
 * I can't access the last two, but I think this shows that there are enough sources to satisfy notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of these fail WP:SIGCOV. #1 is four sentences. #2 is three sentences. #3 is just a very brief passing mention. #4 passing mention; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the actor. #5 appears to be just a couple passing mentions. #6 snippet does not show whether coverage is significant or not. Furthermore, WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally ranked critics or significant coverage more than 5 years after release. Neither of those is demonstrated here. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 04:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Motion Picture News and Film Daily were important publications in 1920, and that's how long reviews for short subjects were. If short reviews from 1920 don't count, then there would be no notable short features from that period. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST BonkHindrance (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. Sadads (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep most silent films are notable and this one has reviews in reliable sources. A film does not have to pass WP:NFILM it can just pass WP:GNG and this one does imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.