Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last of the Duanes (1924 film)


 * 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) Jack Frost (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The Last of the Duanes (1924 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a seemingly non-notable movie. There's only one source in the article. Which is just a basic movie listing and nothing else for it except more of the same comes up in a search. There are some search results for other films made around the same time period that have the same name and the book this was based on, but there's nothing about this except for basic listings of the films name and the year it was released. There's definitely no in-depth reviews or anything that would help it pass WP:NFILM from what I can tell though. Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Review: LAST OF THE DUANES. Variety. Vol. 76, Iss. 6, (Sep 24, 1924): 76. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Review: Rushville Republican. Rushville, Indiana. Saturday, December 05, 1925 - Page 3. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Review: San Pedro Daily Plot. San Pedro, California. Saturday, November 29, 1924 - Page 7. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references. I'm not sure local small town newspaper reviews cut it though. Even for older films. Do you happen to know how in-depth they are?


 * Keep: I added news articles and reviews from The Casper Star-Tribune, The Muncie Evening Press and The Buffalo Courier. It's not hard to find reviews from old movies at newspapers.com. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Review: Hamilton Evening Journal. Hamilton, Ohio. Tuesday, December 09, 1924 - Page 11. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the single paragraph local newspaper reviews either of you are adding really cut it. They have to be in-depth and in either a regional or national source. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how long movie reviews were in 1924. The format was different then. This list of reviews demonstrates that the film opened nationally and was covered in every newspaper. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, Variety is and was probably the leading entertainment magazine in the United States. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And some are multiple paragraphs. And if not big city papers all over the country reviewed it, all the better. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it proves notability. Most movies got a paragraph brief mention in local newspapers up until about the internet to gin up movie theater attendance. So there's nothing particularity notable about it, because it widely applies. I remember reading reviews of movies in my local newspaper in the 90s when I was a teenager. It would be ridiculous to say that local newspapers where the only sources covering movies in the 1920s just because that's the only thing you can find, or to say it's notable simply because of the time period. Just like it would be for me to say the same thing about the movies I read reviews about in 90s. The 20s were practically the height of Hollywood and there was plenty of none local sources covering movies during that period. Just not this one apparently. So, I really don't get what either of you are saying. You can't throw out WP:NFILM guidelines about sourcing just because of the time period or claim that since you only found local sources on this particular movie that they are the only kind of sources that covered movies back then. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Ok. Where do I start here? Well, not all newspapers are online for searching digitally, so there is a separate assumption that more sources exist for certain topics. Then there's the fact that this is, like, 1920s Brad Pitt level of star starring in a James Patterson author popular of a movie. There's your sign. Let me also explain that different newspaper databases have different collections. Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive are the most small-towny types, generally, though they do have some major metropolitan areas represented. Proquest is the big player in the U.S. major daily newspapers. It got attention. I was going to search that one last, but now I see you needed it first. Brb. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Western Tale of Zane Grey Filmed Well: Hard Boiled Men and Cuddly Girl Is Idea. Tinee, Mae. Chicago Daily Tribune. 25 Aug 1924: 15. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't under the radar then where's the regional or national reviews of it? Plenty of regional and national news outlets did movie reviews back then. For instance there was reviews of the 1915 film Birth of a Nation in the New York Times, The New Republica, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Times. Along with many other non-local news sources. All of them are referenced in the Birth of a Nation article also and that was back in 1915. So you can't claim it only getting local coverage is because regional/national news sources from that time period are just harder to find. -Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I need a minute to find them. You just nominated this article and ToughPigs and I have been sorting through the many sources on it. I never said those sources are harder to find; I said I hadn't searched that database yet. In addition to the Chicago Tribune article I mentioned above that you haven't responded about, and Variety, there is St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 10 Nov 1924: 17. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, your the one that voted keep before you looked for the sources. That's not on me. This thing is going to be up for a week and you could have chosen to wait to vote until you where sure there was sources out there. All I can comment on is how you voted and your reason for voting. Generally though, it's not a good idea to vote based faulty logic and then work backwards from your own conclusions later. Hold off until you actually have the sources to back the vote up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that's what happened? Bless your heart. See that I voted 15 minutes after I posted the Variety source, and after I posted several others? I'd seen enough sources in Proquest, Newspapers.com, and NewspaperArchive to make a vote it passed on general notability. See, I've got my databases bookmarked on my laptop and on my phone for occasions such as these. Maybe some admin will be merciful and speedy close. Or you could gracefully withdraw the nom, but I'm not forecasting that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Adamant1, I just added a review from The Film Daily, which you can see on the Internet Archive here. The Film Daily was a national paper for the film industry, and they gave The Last of the Duanes a full column. I can't imagine why you're trying to browbeat DiamondRemley, instead of recognizing that there are multiple reliable sources, including The Film Daily and Variety. Continuing to argue at this point only demonstrates your WP:ZEAL. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy keep. there is significant coverage available in newspaper databases online. Also consider that it's a Zane Grey story starring Tom Mix... Two immensely popular figures in the 20th century western. This film was not under the radar at the time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Motion Picture World DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NFILM says "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", or plot summaries without critical commentary." According to Capsule review "A capsule review or mini review[1] is a form of appraisal, usually associated with journalism, that offers a relatively short critique of a specified creative work (movie, music album, restaurant, painting, etc.). Capsule reviews generally appear in publications like newspapers and magazines." Which 100% would be what the local newspaper "reviews" you and ToughPigs have cited would qualify as. You can't use the WP:GNG in this case because capsule reviews are something specifically addressed by WP:NFILM as not establishing notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's one little piece meant to indicate some popular/trade coverage. It's not the be-all and end-all of notability, though I see now it was not a smooth move for me to post it here where you'd read it and get distracted by it. You can't see all of what we're seeing because you're not reading these PDFs, so how can you say what level of coverage each is, and that they're all too short, and not from the "right" publications, and not enough, not enough, not enough? If you're wanting me to count the words in them, sorry, not happening. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know what I'm reading or not or what I have access to? I don't need to say how much is enough or what the right sources are anyway, because that's what the notability guidelines are for. You can turn this into a personal thing all you want, and go off about how your right because your seeing special things I'm not like you'd know what I'm looking at or like it even matters, but it's not really relevant to this. Personally, I don't really care what the word count is, because that's not how this works. There is no arbitrary line where if it's 500 words its suddenly in-depth or something. It's about the type of "review" it is. Particularly in this case. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So which ones aren't capsule reviews then? I brought word could because you seem to be caught up on length and depth. Correct that you don't need to say how much is enough. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing I said or the guidelines say about capsule reviews have anything to do with length. Like I said, there is no arbitrary line where something magically becomes in-depth. It's on you to make sure the sources you provide meet the notability standards. Which includes making sure they aren't capsule reviews and are in-depth. I don't really give a crap about if it's 400 words or 500 words, because it's not my job to check your sources to make sure they are legitimate. My assumption though is that all or the vast majority of movies "reviews" in local newspapers would be capsule reviews, because it's in their peer view, specialty, or purpose to have in-depth articles about movies. They don't usually employee "movie experts" like national or regional news outlets would either. Which is why WP:NFILM doesn't say specifically, because its not a situation where it needs to. Otherwise, it would. We could sit here all day to and debate the meaning of words, but that's one of the reasons the notability guidelines exist in the first place. So we don't have to. That said, I looked at a few of the newspaper.com sources that have been provided and like I said before they where all a single paragraph or two short ones. Which doesn't count as in-depth, whatever you want to call them. The fact that your unwilling to say if they are in-depth or not makes it clear that either you didn't check them, you just don't care, or that they are all trivial and your deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Early on in the discussion, I wrote "and some are multiple paragraphs", a comment you have seemingly ignored as this discussion has continued. What would you like? Seriously? Would you like me to directly quote some of these? I can transcribe portions for you since, according to you, "It's on [me] to make sure the source [I] provide..." which brings me to another point: you write "make sure the sources you provide meet the notability standards" and that is incorrect. You have conflated the concepts of reliability and significance with notability. Sources don't need to meet notability; the subject does. There is a distinction. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you and ToughPigs should have done is to not include the ones that aren't multiple paragraphs in the first place, becuase they can't be used for notability anyway and just convolute things. Which leads to these kinds of disagreements. On your other point, reliability and significance determine notability and you can't seperate them. A topic that only trivial coverage in unreliable sources is by its nature not notable. So, while the subject doesn't have to reliable, its not notable unless the sources are. Agaon, your really just splitting hairs over semantics. Its implied IMO that erything in AfDs is about both. Even if its not explicity stated in the discussion that it is. Otherwise its to easy to get lost in the minutia. Ultimately though AfDs stand on the sourcing. Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment was rediscovered, preserved, and appeared at a film festival. Not sure if it meets the film festival guideline for film notability, but it's there, anyway. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the excellent expansion work by Toughpigs post-nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-referenced. Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provided establish notability. And there are probably even more sources out there which have not been digitized. Good work by all to find what there is. Rhino131 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reviews in reliable sources and other coverage that show a pass of WP:GNG and the article has been substantially improved since nomination as per WP:HEY,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for historical purposes. Meets the basic WP:GNG demands. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2020 (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.