Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Do We Eat? (1918 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The result was Looks like a pretty comprehensively withdrawn nom. Grutness...wha?  01:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When Do We Eat? (1918 film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete because it fails WP:N. WP:NF states the requirements. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. NO The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. NO The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.NO The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. NO The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. NO The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.NO The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.NO The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. NO. Sorry, it fails the criteria and should be deleted. Model710 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Another day, another "I never heard of it" AfD. OK, I'll a little of the research the nominator should have done before putting this one up... Dekkappai (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the many films directed by Fred Niblo that didn't have an article, and I created it to help plug the gaps. It is hard to find sources for silent films, but this article is referenced.  If this AfD did end up as a delete, then I'd guess around 95% of film articles for films before 1927 would get deleted too (and quite a few post 1927!).  I'm also concerned that the nominator only has 10 edits (as of this AfD being listed), with none in the WP mainspace.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How encyclopedic can it be if it's a five minute long, 90-year old silent film with no recorded plot overview?-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a hypothetical question, since a very quick search just pulled up a lengthy, contemporary review by Variety and a full entry in the American Film Catalog. Dekkappai (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it hypothetical? The only reference the article uses states the running time as 5 minutes, it's from 90 years ago, and the article doesn't have a plot overview.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fifty minutes long, not 5. And I've just been working on adding a plot.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ce)Oh, you're saying our article has no plot overview, therefore we should delete it rather than write one from the many sources that summarize the plot? Sorry. I wouldn't have even replied if I knew that's what you meant... Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said delete. I asked how the article, the way it is now, establishes encyclopedic value. I was trying to show what my first impression was to point out the work it needs.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep I am being attacked and called a sock. This is a way to bully me. So I give up. I vote keep. I declare this article the most notable in the history of Wikipedia. Model710 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Additions only add to the article.  Just crosses the line for notability, doesn't give much history.  I smell an axe grinder. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AFI gives four more contemporary reviews... Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources exist, even if there's not a whole lot to say it still seems to meet general notability. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Dekkappai (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just added two more newspaper reviews/articles from Google News search... Gee, it's beginning to look like something 90 years old can actually be "Notable"... Now I wonder if something in a foreign language could possibly be notable also?... nah! Dekkappai (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Reliable sources and notable. On another note, Why are new sockpuppets, such as Model710, allowed to hide behind a separate account (for reputation's sake or ban evasion) to nominate articles for deletion? This practice always seems to be protected. SashaNein (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not "most notable" simply "notable" will prevent its deletion, and will suffice. Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So should this be closed now, or, what?-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the above strikethrough works as a withdrawal of nomination. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:43, 20 June 2008 (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.