Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/For the Love of Mike


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For the Love of Mike

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

Notability concerns - lacks the importance or significance of the subject. It was a commercial failure and is now a lost film. Smilemeans (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Deserves an article as it satisfies WP:N and WP:V. IMDb: . MSN: . BFI: . Halliwell's Film Guide: . The New York Times Review: . Toronto Star Synopsis:   Rafablu88  16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @741  · 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But fails WP:NF as it appears to be a historically non-notable film that was never in wide release. (sabotaged by distribution problems). Smilemeans (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jumping the gun a bit here. The full ADVISED guideline is "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".


 * 1) Now, first of all, "widely distributed" is subjective to begin with (when do you consider a man to be bald? when he loses one follicle, or when he is completely without hair, or at some point in between?).
 * 2) Secondly, many independent movies that are here would also fail based on your strict interpretation.
 * 3) Finally, "sabotaged by distribution problems" could mean anything: it could mean that instead of being shown in 48 states it was only shown in 30. Is that not "wide" enough?? We can't be sure of what Allmovie means.
 * What we can be sure is that it HAS received full length reviews at the time and throughout the 20th century and its shambles of a production process is still being discussed today, especially in Frank Capra biopics. Rafablu88  00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep part of early film history (falure or not) and directed by an icon of cinema history (whether he liked it or not). In 1927, the film received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG (had it existed 82 years ago), and notability is not temporary. Further, the film istelf is considered recently notable enough by multiple authors for them to write about it, and scholars to research it . This article improves Wikipedia and a reader's understanding of early film. My opinion is that there is enough available for this article to be expanded and further sourced... currently "lost" or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The involvement of Frank Capra as director and Claudette Colbert as star tends to suggest notability, particularly considering that a later collaboration between them (It Happened One Night) swept the Oscars. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another sourced historical note: The film was the screen debut of Claudette Colbert and was her only silent film. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the sources now found in the reference section. It gets adequate coverage.   D r e a m Focus  16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the love of Mike, please do not delete this article based on "notability" of all things! Thanks!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - per souring provided in the AfD & improvements done during it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (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.