Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Neath the Arizona Skies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn (keep) with no support for deletion. JERRY talk contribs 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Neath the Arizona Skies

'Neath the Arizona Skies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Possibly the worst of the Duke's early shoot-em-ups, a typical B western with not much to distinguish it. This article consists solely of directory-type information, and unsourced plot summary. Already covered in adequate detail in John Wayne filmography (1926-1940). Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see us deleting an article on a movie starring John Wayne, or any star of similar calibre, even if it is an early and unremarkable work. There are plenty of John Wayne biographies out there so I doubt sourcing is an issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stars a legendary actor, IMDB profile, is notable enough --Boss Big (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFD isn't clean-up. After a quick look at Google Search and Google Books Search, notability definitely still stands. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I am hearing that the movie inherits notability from the actor... is that right? So shall we toss out WP:NOTINHERITED? Is there some assertion that this movie has received multiple non-trivial mention in reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject? Or is everything John Wayne a no-brainer keep? JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I spent hours going through the google results. I found 3 valid sources. I added all of them to the article. The rest were blogs, personal webpages, mirrors of WP or IMDB/ IMDB clones, or people selling/renting the movie. But "3 sources" is "multiple", and "just barely notable" is "notable" so... I guess we should keep it. JERRY talk contribs 03:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Note: The above comment is NOT sarcasm.
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Stars a notable actor, seems to be the subject of multiple reliable sources, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google Books sources and a NYT review really are more than a lot of movie articles have. This is an historical topic and judging solely by online search results has limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. Encyclopedic means a compendium of all knowledge. If information is verifiable and well sourced it should have a place in Wikipedia. I see nothing at all harmful in keeping articles like this one. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:01, 13 February 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.