Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red, White and Zero


 * 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. Lourdes 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Red, White and Zero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Atsme Talk 📧 13:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete- Fails WP:FILM. Andrew Base (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems nom hasn't done the necessary WP:BEFORE.  Easily meets WP:GNG per the following news items and reviews of the recent BFI Blu-ray release  etc, etc, etc...  212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * IP:212.135.65.247 - I actually did do the necessary WP:BEFORE, and I question if it "Easily meets WP:GNG". WP:N provides Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. The sources you listed are not exactly mainstream. For example, psychotroniccinema.com ranks 9,731,400 at Alexa. The Digital Fix doesn't rank very high, either.  I'd say the DVD is questionable at best, and focuses on a niche market, which is why I brought it here rather than prod it. Atsme  Talk 📧 20:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG aside, it certainly meets the criteria for WP:NFO. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Revert to Redirect (if significant RS coverage cannot be established) - Thanks for your invitation to participate here . I assume that I was contacted because I was the original creator of the article (i.e. a redirect I created back in 2011). Ignoring the question of the article-worthiness of the topic (which I haven't yet looked into), I do think that full deletion is inappropriate when it actually serves a good purpose as a redirect. The image shown in the infobox of The White Bus is only one version of the film. Others such as this show clearly that Red, White and Zero is a valid search term for this film. If this was an WP:RFD proceeding I wouldn't hesitate to argue that WP:R#KEEP #3, 5, and 7 all apply. Again I haven't looked whether the topic meets GNG, but full deletion makes little sense to me when simple reversion (which maintains attribution) is available. I'll finalize my vote after I get a chance to consider the topic properly. -Thibbs (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it's not really a big deal or anything but you might consider swapping from Template:RFDNote-NPF to Template:RFDNote in cases like this in the future as it brings to mind WP:DTTR... I haven't been given a "Welcome to Wikipedia!" message in over a decade, so I was :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to meet your acquaintance,, I will keep your suggestion in mind and thank you. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 02:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise! :) -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with redirecting to The White Bus is that Ride of the Valkyrie (1967 film) is also part of this portmanteau film. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I hadn't thought of that. If Red, White and Zero is also an alternate title for Ride of the Valkyrie then we'd need a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. Sorry I have been slow to respond. I can find several RSes that mention Red, White and Zero, but it's not obvious that a full article is yet merited. I'll correct my !vote unless anything new comes up. -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On further examination I can't find any examples of Ride of the Valkyrie being referred to as Red, White and Zero, so I'll keep my call for Revert to Redirect. I'll try to keep an eye on things as new evidence develops. -Thibbs (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The White Bus is incorrectly referred to as Red, White and Zero. The "Red" in the title refers to Red and Blue and the "Zero" in the title refers to Zero Mostel, who was only in Ride of the Valkyrie.  Only the "White" part of the title refers to the The White Bus.  See this from 2013, and some of the Google scholar links for clarification.  212.135.65.247 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The usefulness of a redirect doesn't depend on its correctness. If people refer to The White Bus as Red, White and Zero and if there are insufficient sources to support Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone article, then the redirect should be used to direct readers to The White Bus. The correctness of the title can be explained within the body of the The White Bus article if RSes cover it. I'm not saying that the topic of Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone topic is definitely inappropriate, but you probably have to put more effort into sourcing (paying close attention to both WP:RS and WP:N/WP:GNG) in order to safeguard against reversion/deletion. What I'm suggesting at this point is to at least preserve the redirect (regardless of its correctness) until someone has the inclination to dig up sufficient sourcing to develop the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But there are not insufficient sources to support Red, White and Zero as a stand-alone article and a stub is a perfectly reasonable starting point. It could certainly be improved, but it is most definitely notable, especially considering the recent release and the fact the the British Film Institute refer to it as "a major rediscovery".  A redirect to just one of its three components is misleading.  212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's how The White Bus is known (rightly or wrongly - it doesn't matter) then the redirect would serve a useful purpose. Better to retain the redirect in my view than to delete it entirely along with the stub. Expressed idiomatically: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As far as the stub is concerned, someone has questioned the notability of the topic. From my own brief examination of the sources, I believe the central issue is the "significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG. If it's most definitely notable then presumably it should be easy to quickly come up with the significant coverage required. I'm not arguing either way. All I'm asking for is a safety net for the redirect in case the required coverage is considered less than significant. -Thibbs (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE clearly was not followed. Here is the review of the film in The New York Times during its initial release (and if the nyt reviewed this British film you can guarantee the major UK and other international papers did as well) . I even found one substantial review from when the film was recently released on DVD this year. I have access through my university on ProQuest. "Red, White and Zero.(Staff Recommendations: Cineaste Editors Tout Favorite Recent DVD & Blu-ray Releases)"; Porton, Richard; Cineaste, 2019, Vol.44(3), p.67(1) The film was also discussed in these books:, ,.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above which show that the film passes WP:GNG including a review in The New York Times, Cineaste, and book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems like there's enough here to pass GNG per 4meter4 and the IP at the top. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:53, 26 October 2019 (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.