Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanishing Men


 * 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. Enigmamsg 03:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Vanishing Men

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stumbled upon this article while doing some new page patrolling. No references in the article, and a single external link is provided to the film's entry on IMDb. The film definitely existed, but I was unable to find any references that establish notability. There is a List of lost films that the film could be added to, but I see no reason for it to have its own page. kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –  TheGridExe  ( talk )  20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or potentially redirect. I find that (relatively) early films almost always have significant coverage in contemporary sources, and even lost films get some attention from modern scholars. But, admittedly, that... might not be the case here. This film was produced by Monogram Pictures, arguably the standard-bearer for Poverty Row B-movie production, and the Poverty Row films didn't attract as much attention then (or now). Complicating the issue here are the false positives (from 1924's documentary The Isle of Vanishing Men, the unrelated 1924 The Valley of Vanishing Men, and the 1940s serial of that same name). It has a very short capsule review in the 4 June 1932 Motion Picture Herald, where Rita McGoldrick declared it "Good" (which didn't mean it was good—that got you a "very good" or "excellent"), but I'm not going to pretend that's enough to establish notability. I do expect some modern discussion of the film in Ted Okuda's The Monogram Checklist, but I don't have that one immediately available. If sources sufficient for retention aren't forthcoming, I'd suggest a redirect to Tom Tyler instead of the more generic lost films list; he was what passed for a big star at Monogram, and the article includes this in his filmography (although I guess you could make a case for a redirect to the director's article instead...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. No reliable sources exist to support an article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  22:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually fairly sure I can convert this to an appropriately referenced stub, but it's going to be Monday, I think, before I can get to it. Also, I suspect I won't have access to Okuda or to the 1932 review in Kine Weekly(but I can prove there is one...), so further expansion will be plausible after I'm done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Expanded somewhat. I won't lie, this is a weaker film stub than I prefer to author; the two sources I'm missing are sadly important. Okuda's monograph of Monogram Pictures is the definitive work on the studio's films (and should be a reliable sources as to its lost status, I expect). Also, the Kinematograph Year Book confirms the existence of a British review of the film (Kinematograph Weekly, June 9, 1932); most of the back issues of "Kine", as it is called, are digitized and available online, but this is (of course) from the middle of one of the big gaps. Finally, I haven't found any contemporary commentary on the 1937 re-issue by Astor; I'm sure someone took further note of it. There hasn't been a published monograph of Astor's re-release work, so there may not be much more to say than noting it happened. I think this meets the inclusion standards as it stands, especially knowing that Kine review is out there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly a notable film and documented as such in numerous books. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Like what, exactly? If you claim there's sources that exist, then produce them. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  01:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of Squeamish's promised improvements, will check back later in week and if he is unable to carry them out will change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming strong keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of well referenced content and those references show that it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - looks good to me. Thanks for rescuing the article, . kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes notability with current referencing. There are also other mentions in trade magazines of the day, such as Ralph Wilk's column, A Little from "Lots".  Onel 5969  TT me 15:58, 22 May 2018 (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.