Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town

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 delete for evident failure of verifiability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town

Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Suspected hoax. A German Nazi-era film made in England is quite startling and would be extremely notable and yet there is absolutely nothing I can find for it using either the English or German titles. If not a hoax this should be easy to prove and this nomination withdrawn. Ros0709 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete A fascinating hoax, with just enough elements that it would sound true if we didn't have ways to verify otherwise. After all, it sounds like the plot of a Nazi-produced film, and there really was a series of "Mr. Pinkerton" books published in the 1930s by David Frome and Zenith Jones Brown. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I appreciate the vigilance of other Wikipedia users in their efforts to expose hoax or inaccurate articles, however this is a genuine piece based upon a recently published book and I have quoted my source material. I am not surprised “Googling” does produce any results. The film did not meet the expectations of the German authorities and received only a short cinematic release. It is worth remembering that the Internet is not the only repository of human knowledge and there is a great deal of fascinating information contained in published sources that has yet to be recorded on the web. I appreciate this type of subject matter does (and should) arouse suspicion, but I reiterate the point this is a genuine article. I would add that nobody has really made any truly valid points and the criticisms made amount to nothing more than suspicion and innuendo. Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. If the cited source (Mary Elizabeth O'Brien, Nazi Cinema as Enchantment) fails to support the film's existence and notability, then delete the article, but the suggestion that it is a hoax cannot be sustained until someone has actually checked the source. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a real book, but I find it somewhat odd that there are over 100 google hits recognizing Ms. O'Brien's book (which studies 13 films from the Nazi era) and not a single one of them mentions "Mr. Pinkerton", even though it would strike me as being a fascinating fact. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is getting rather silly. Let's look at this in depth. We're expected to believe that:
    • With all the scholarship on Nazi-era propaganda films, including numerous books, documentaries, etc, not one of them mentions this movie's supposed existance.
    • Not even the IMDB lists this, despite including many films farm more obscure than this would be if it existed.
    • A Nazi propaganda film was made in England in the late 30s? Ridiculous. Films of the time were rarely shot on location anyway, and it would have been far simpler safer and cheaper to make British-looking locations on a soundstage rather than move the cast and crew behind enemy lines to shoot an entire feature film! The very idea is ludicrous.
    • Both the claimed director (Wisbar) and supposed star (Frohlich) are very well-known, yet none of their filmographies mentions this film. The silliness of this is on par with believing that Steven Spielberg made an anti-communist propaganda film starring Harrison Ford in the 80s, which everyone has completely forgotten about.
    • Frank Wisbar's wife was Jewish, and he wouldn't have been involved in something anti-semitic... in fact, he left Germany for America in the late 30s, and the Nazis siezed some of his family's property.
    • The article claims Frohlich had a "near-fatal stroke", which is bizarre since he was about 30 at the time, was a well-known leading man and involved with a number of movies that year and the following years, and lived for more than 50 more years (and didn't die of a stroke even then). No sources mention this stroke or health problems around this time.
  • All told, this is a pritty hard bratwurst to swallow. While this may not be a WP:BLP issue per se as nobody involved is living, it is essentially accusing two very-real people of anti-semitism, without any solid sources to back it up, when the actual information shows that neither of Wisbar nor Frohlich was friendly toward the Reich. Since it involves real people who have living descendants, it's far from a cute and harmless hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep This is getting silly, but only because your “research” about the film is limited entirely to on-line sources. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that the Internet is a flawed and incomplete repository of information. Dealing with your points in turn I would say the following:
        • The destruction wrought upon Germany during the Second World War was colossal. It is hardly surprising that the cultural and artistic record of Germany during the Nazi period is incomplete.
        • The IMDB is a flawed source of information – one only needs to mention the notorious claim that Christian Slater appeared in a film version of Stig of the Dump.
        • Britain and Germany were not at war in 1937, therefore Britain can not be described as being “behind enemy lines” at that time. Indeed, prior to Hitler’s regnaiging of the 1938 Munich Agreement, the British Government was very keen to come to an understanding with Germany and encouraged cultural links – which the Nazis sadly exploited. In fact it was much cheaper to shoot the film in England rather than build sets in Germany.
        • Wisbar did leave Germany precisely because of what the regime were pushing him into doing – there is speculation that he deliberately botched “Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town”. Frohlich survived his stroke and made a substantial recovery. Your comparison to Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg is simply facile.
        • I have discovered something that is very silly, namely your contributions to Wikipedia. Articles about Nude on the Moon, Wibbly Pig and Axehandle Hound do not add much to the gamut of human knowledge. Your only article about the Second World War relates to a computer game(!) about the North Africa Campaign.
        • The article is genuine and I am not accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic. This is a very "dry" article and as a first time contributor to Wikipedia, I am amazed at the fuss it has provoked. Please buy/borrow and then read the quoted source material. It’s really that simple.Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Only !vote once please. – sgeureka t•c 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion that an editor's opinion is without merit because of their own contributions is a personal attack - please keep to the subject of the article itself. I am finding it very difficult to locate a copy of that book in the UK but you are correct in that respect - having access to a copy would help somewhat. Ros0709 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Starblind spells it out well. If it were real, there would be sources, and the actor allegedly suffering a near-fatal stroke at 30 when he lived another 50 years is the icing on the cake. Edward321 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Starblind did not spell it out well. He made a lot of sloppy, unsubtantiated comments that I dealt with (he thought that Britain was at war with Germany in 1937!). This article is genuine and it is certainly "noteworthy enough" becuase there is a whole list of similar films already on Wikipdia - see the link at the bottom of the article. I will reiterate the point. This article is drawn from a published source. The fact that it is not referenced on other web-sites is irrelevant. What is the purpose of Wikipedia? Is it simply supposed to be an echo-chamber of Google or IMDB? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Sarah Thompson99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Again, please do not make the argument personal. Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Per the nomination, I would agree the film would undoubtedly be notable - specifically due to the unique status you attribute to it rather than whatever other articles are on Wikipedia already. Comparing against other articles is specifically addressed at WP:WAX. The issue I have is the verifiability - a third party needs to review your source. Ros0709 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if this movie really was published, does it also count as noteworthy enough to be included? Shentino (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep pending a check of the actual source. My university's library has a copy of the O'Brien book that I can check within the next 24 hours. --RLacey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Any news? Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Delete I've checked the source, and there's a) nothing on p. 193 on the subject, and b) no mention of the film in the index (I've checked the English and German titles). This one does appear to be a hoax.--RLacey (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • You have most definitely not read the source material at all. You are a new user and I strongly suspect that RLacey is a Sockpuppet (WP:SOCK) of somebody else who has already contributed to this discussion. It seems rather convenient that you just happen to find a copy of this book in your university library. I have written a genuine article based on a recently published book. You have to ask yourselves who on earth would make this up? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • This is the third time you have resorted to personal attacks. Please desist. I note that RLacey first contributed to Wikipedia in 2005 which does not, IMO, make him a new user. Ros0709 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 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.