Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pray to Kill and Return Alive


 * 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. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Pray to Kill and Return Alive

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable movie, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The English title is actually "Shoot the Living and Pray For the Dead", but a Google search for that term also didn't produce any non-trivial reliable sources. The article was prodded for those reasons; an IP editor removed the prod but wouldn't "be bullied by a deletionist into improving the article". Huon (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep after significant improvement by Cavarrone beyond what I would have believed possible. Huon (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Although humorous, posting the remark was unnecessary. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When I've tried to get rid of an article via PROD and the attempt failed for reasons I consider insufficient, I tend to say so at AfD. That was a quote from the IP's edit summary. Its remaining point is addressed by WP:GHITS. Huon (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's the accusation page for when you disagree with me next time, but can't make it personal. (Could probably SPA me also!)68.107.135.58 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete -- google created the universe = extreme sarcasm, major Spaghetti Western, should be under best translation of English name, "Shoot the Living and Pray For the Dead," but really can't deal with deletionists on Wikipedia The movie wasn't made in America, and it's not a minor character or avatar in a video game, or a minor league British footballer, so it must be a fake article. Yeah, if it's on google, it's a bs argument, but if it can't be found in a google book or an on-line database, it can't be notable, because, well, google created the universe! 68.107.135.58 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your !vote a reaction to the nomination? Contrary to the nominator's statement indicating he perhaps did not look into non-English sources, sources are available and the article is already looking far better than when nominated.  Requiring improvements through the addressable issues of addition of content, context, and sourcing were perhaps the real reason it was brought to this discussion. Or do you really think this sourcable topic, one which CAN be found discussed in books and reviews, must be deleted?  And if so, why?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see from your recent modification that your comment was meant sarcastically, and not intended as an actual vote for removal. I can understand your frustration, but the best way to address issues raised by a nominator is to show that the issues were/are addressable over time and through regular editing, and that an outright deletion is not always the best way to improve the project.  As for the title, it may have been taken from the American IMDB, and not the Italian one. Indeed, its most recent release in the US was as To Kill a Jackal, and it does have even more sourcability in German as Mörder des Klans. But as often times a literal translation of a title into English is not the best choice for some films, we can always discuss a move to a more sourcable title on the article's talk page, but even that does not require deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a process for articles that need improvement, and the process is not false nominations for deletion in order to pressure editors into immediately improving it. I can either write the article or fight to save it, not both, and I refuse to have my time ordered to by a bully whose life is controlled by what exists in Google. Once a notable topic is up for deletion, a real editor, someone with the knowledge and resources to write the article must turn from writing articles to playing games with the boys here at AFD in order to keep the article. That's the real thing that tells why editors leave Wikipedia in droves: some of us came here to edit. So, I give Huon what he/she wants: rid of one more editor writing substantive articles that cannot be fully researched on Google and leave Wikipedia to documenting the English-speaking Western world. 68.107.135.58 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, AFD is NOT to be used as a bludgeon to force improvemnts, but it sometimes is anyway. However, his offering of his impractical search parameters allow the argument that the nominator gunuinely felt this topic was unimprovable.  As better investigation by willing editors has shown the flaw in his nomination, he might even withdraw.... but please do not let this nomination chase you off the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The English-language Wikipedia is not about English-ONLY films, but is to be about any notable topic but simply written in English for its English-language readers. When we have a 1971 Italian film starring Klaus Kinski, always better to look for sources under its release title to see if this pre-internet film has made it into the enduring record, and then ask Italian-reading Wikipedians to assist in translations.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional AKAs:
 * Italian:
 * Germany:
 * International:
 * Sweden:
 * France:
 * Portugal:
 * Latest USA:
 * Brazil:
 * Finland:
 * Note: We do well to remember that is is extremely unlikely that a Klaus Kinski film, even 20 years pre-internet 1971 spaghetti western, would somehow and strangely escape the notice of international reviewers. We look, we find.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep. If a 1971 spaghetti western sank without a trace (more or less), but it happened to have Klaus Kinski in it, would that make the film notable? No. Coverage I find an any language is unconvincing--directories, trivial mentions, and non-WP:RS blogs and the like. I also had a look at the Italian and French versions of this article, but they are much stubbier. Fails WP:N, fails WP:NFILM. Happy to be proved wrong, but please prove me wrong, don't just assert it--yes, I am looking in your direction 68.107.135.58. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is vastly improved as to content and sourcing since nominated, so I've reversed my vote. Cavarrone and Schmidt are to be commended for their efforts here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Glad to have been able to help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

*Delete As the nominator has proven, this is a non-notable film which has no credible reason to be included here. doktorb wordsdeeds
 * Rather than deal with an anonymous IP expressing his frustration at AFD, please deal instead with me and my willingness and ability to dig and fix. I am having success in finding that the film did indeed have "more-than-trivial" coverage in multiple non-English sources, and the article is slowly being improved accordingly. While not happening immediately, it is being done. We do not expect nor demand that a 41-year-old, pre-intenet, foreign film would have the same extensive level of English language coverage as might a recent Amercian made blockbuster. Wikipedia is not about covering only the MOST notable, but is instead about covering those topics determinable as just notable enough.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bad manners on my part, I didn't realize rescue was in progress. Please give a shout once you've finished, and a less cranky version of me will give it a fresh look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excused, fair enough, and thanks.:) The end result may not be nearly as comprehensive as the various articles about the Star Wars franchise, but it will be better than when first brought to AFD... with no expectation that it will ever be FA or even GA.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If something is not indexed on Google via books or newspapers, it might as well not exist to editors on Wikipedia. And then I get told that ghits is bs. Did anyone look in film books in the library? No, it has to be on Google, in their limited available databases, to be notable.
 * I gave up a couple of years ago, and should have stayed there; stupid of me to try to improve this article after a rousing discussion with a bunch of Hollywood directors about the film. You know that lame thinking: exciting discussion about a great film with so little information on line, I have my own library full of resources on Italian and Spanish and German cinema, and can borrow others and access membership databases, let me improve the Wikipedia article.
 * The triple whammy even without being an IP: expertise in my area, a room lined with reference sources (called "books"), and, oh, the worse of all, female. 68.107.135.58 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the use of the generic "he" and "him". The thing about ghits is that, while they are a indicator of possibilities, there is also a need that examples of more-than-trivial coverge be actually offered for inspection. For instance here and and here I spoke toward Ghits, then offered examples, and then went and improved the articles. The bigger "whammy" is that while sitting at our computers, I and others do not have access to your personal library. However, and even with a tendency by some to forget they exist, offline sources are quite acceptable for citing articles. See Template:Cite book to see how to include them. If you are willing, your assisting in editing the article (as you are able) would be most welcome.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the nominator has "proven" is his difficulties in trying to source a foreign film by an impractical literal translation of its foreign title. Under other titles, the film is covered in non-English sources. So the decline of his prod was well and properly done (even if surrounded by angst). What has subsequently been shown is that the film is notable enough to merit inclusion by it actually having the requisite coverage. We do not expect it to have the coverage of a popular blockbuster just so long as it does have enough coverage to meet applicable criteria... which this one does. As his "search effort" has been shown problematic and his arguments have been rebutted, a simple WP:PERNOM !vote is unhelpful, and may well be disregarded by a closer.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I personally own in my library three RS about this film, and they're not trivial mentions nor unconvincing directories, the Marco Giusti and Paolo Mereghetti books I have already added to the article and a "dossier" about the film in a Nocturno Cinema magazine issue, that I should recover in my collection (it is not simple as we're talking about some hundreds of issues!). Clearly the film is less notable than a Sergio Leone or a Sergio Corbucci spaghetti western, indeed it is notable enough, at least in my views, to pass GNG and WP:NFILMS. Specifically, it appears to pass criterium 1 "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." as for the film was widely distributed (see here) and Marco Giusti and Paolo Mereghetti are nationally (relative to Italy, obviously) known critics. Cavarrone (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notable to Italy through non-English sources is pefectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Major kudos to you for your work performed since this was first nominated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Having seen the changes made to the article and checked some of the non-English sources, I am confident that the article is now suitable for retaining doktorb wordsdeeds 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Could someone swing by and close this please? It's been 7 days. There are no votes to delete.  And the nominator has withdrawn. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Even without the massive expansion work that's be done (many thanks to all!), this film starred Klaus Kinski.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I'm going to move it to the corrected English title. I don't know what the Wikiequete is for this during an AfD (or care, TBH). Send your complaints to the Keyser Söze's.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the talkpage the consensus seems to be it should be moved to the Italian title because there is no single correct English title. I'm just waiting for the discussion to be closed; it shouldn't be moved before. Huon (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2012 (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.