Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunfighters of the Northwest


 * 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 speedy keep per nominator withdrawal and no other delete votes SarekOfVulcan (talk)  14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Gunfighters of the Northwest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found this listed online in plenty of film directories, but I don't think it has any significant coverage in reliable sources. Nominating for failing applicable notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn: Great work finding some more sources by the participants here. I've changed my mind and they have my thanks. I hope these can be added to the article soon. I withdraw this nomination and ask that someone promptly close this as speedy-keep. samrolken (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article creator. As a black & white 1953 (non-science fiction) film serial, I doubt there will be much coverage on the internet.  However, Google Books is showing some hits and I expect there will be more in specialist media not currently archive by Google.  I believe sufficient sources will exist for this as it was a widely distributed film released by a major studio—albeit in a variant (northern) of a genre (western) that was popular at the time but less so now—with famous lead actors.  Deletion will also leave a gap in the coverage of film serials on Wikipedia (this was one of the very last serials ever made). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Clayton Moore devotes at least three pages in his autobiography I Was That Masked Man to discussing this serial. The New York Times has five sentences about it. Though The Times doesn't praise it, these sources give it notability, in my opinion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like that content hosted at the nytimes.com is actually from All Media Guide, a movie directory. The same content can be found syndicated at hundreds of sites on the Internet. samrolken (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF as a piece of American film history that has made it into the enduring and permanent record, being found in a great number of books covering Western films of that period. Per WP:NTEMP, we do not demand nor expect that a film released in 1953 would have headlines today. While AMG (now Allrovi) does list films, it is not only a movie directory, and the review attributed to them by The New York Times is one by Hans J. Wollstein (needs his own article)... an expert in his field, who is accepted and used as a citation elsewhere within Wikipedia. Information is in enough sources to show it was notable then,sources which makes it still notable today.  We protect such articles on film history for the future of Wikipedia.  We do not demand immediate attention nor seek deletion for improvable topics. Instead, we accept that even if not superb today, they might benefit from the attention of those with access to hard-copy sources unavailable online.  WP:IMPERFECT  WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:NODEADLINE  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:22, 4 March 2013 (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.