Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pursuers


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the film does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for a standalone article. North America1000 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Pursuers

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a non-notable film that resulted in a non-notable spinoff TV series. My WP:BEFORE search reveals obviously non-RS, 1, or non-SIGCOV, 2, 3, 4 refs, with the second ref being a vanity press (tried to add it, but I had rv my edit due to it being unreliable). The 4th ref is also trivial, revealing just two hits. Otherwise, the current refs are trivial databases except for a one paragraph, non-SIGCOV review here from Radio Times. Therefore, this clearly fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, and IMHO should be deleted. VickKiang 07:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cast and appears to be sufficiently covered to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am seeing several Google Books results about the film, either with a solid paragraph or as a brief listing. Since this film came out in 1961, and it is not a very famous film, I think it could be likely that information about the film could be buried in print sources from around that time that would not be directly available online. I'm not sure which way to lean in this case and hope that someone can do a deep dive in databases of UK print sources to see if they can find anything. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, current sources do not satisfy WP:GNG and I can't find any that do. please ping me if you are successful in finding significant coverage. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, As the creator of the article, I believe that although minor, the film has enough significant references, not just trivial mentions, including the BFI, Allmovie, TV Guide, and the Radio Times here (which is a published as well as an online source). The film is a pulp b-movie  dramatisation of a significant event, the 1960 capture of nazi Adolph Eichman and is one of the movies in the Category:Films about Nazi fugitives and Category:Films about Nazi hunters; and therefore arguably itself a historic artefact. It is also listed in the filmographies of notable actors, writers, producers.  If it is removed, there will be no link to click on in these to discover what this film is about. Deleting it is a negative act. It will not benefit Wikipedia and its readers, but only make it the poorer as regards helpful information. Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we really saying database entries are significant, and ignoring WP:NFILM and WP:GNG at all? Therefore arguably itself a historic artefact-false, films don't inherit notability because of an event, nor does actors. On the cast, I don't think this satisfies this: The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. The Leonard Martin Film Guide does not count towards notability because it's a capsule review. A collection of trivial refs is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and elevating databases to non-trivial coverage violates presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. 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. By this logic, if we delete any film is a negative act, why don't we give an article to every film listed on IMDb with one notable actor somehow working on it? Many thanks! VickKiang 11:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the deletion of this article would not mean that The Pursuers would not be mentioned at all anywhere on Wikipedia. It is and will continue to be mentioned at the relevant cast and crew members' articles. The goal here is to have an encyclopedic article, not just a database entry. Anyone can make the case of any old film that it is relevant for having an article, but that's why we have notability standards, to prove that case through how independent sources have significant coverage about the film. BFI, AllMovie, and TV Guide will all have database-style pages for films that will not be considered notable on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE. We need encyclopedic content where this "historical artefact" is concerned. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I went through newspapers.com for "The Pursuers" in England, 1962. There are passing mentions like and https://www.newspapers.com/image/799376030/?terms=%22The%20Pursuers%22&match=1 but I'm just not seeing notability. It'd be weird for a film to have significant coverage in 1960s print but be barely recognized contemporaneously in newspapers. Most sources, then, will probably be reviews made much later. Ovinus (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is it reasonable to expect that a b-film like this from 1961 should have 'significant coverage' available online? Because it is minor does not mean it is not notable. I have tried to show a wider historic significance. The danger with the notability rule, IMHO, is that it limits the films Wikipedia can have articles on to the usual roster of classic or well known films (those most likely to have 'significant coverage'), just like every other encyclopaedia. Isn't Wikipedia potentially more interesting than that? I believe these rules should be questioned rather than used to intimidate editors (please see the comments on Necrothesp's user page, re. this, which I agree with). E.g. I don't find that in this process editors have necessarily gone out of their way to 'avoid the use of sarcastic language' as per the guidelines. I've seen other editors articles taken apart in this way. Decent articles destroyed, because the Wiki police (or Nazis!) decide to move in. There are many more articles deserving of deletion than this one. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment IMHO seems to be a very textbook example WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:ITSNOTABLE, as the closer will decide your accusation of us being Nazis is accurate. Thanks, and I won't comment further!  VickKiang  (talk)  09:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, current sources do not satisfy WP:GNG by any stretch of the imagination. They are either cast listings or extremely short synopses. It might have some notable actors but notability is not inherited. It's not notable because it's a B movie and no one found it interesting enough to discuss it in depth and detail. You can scrape the Internet barrel and find dozens of such sources. And while I'm here, IMO anyone who attacks hard working volunteer Wikipedia editors as Nazis should probably be banned from ever writing an article again - just sayin' . (M&B - it's Marvellous Beer, I was brought up on it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2022 (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.