Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Break, Break, Break (movie)

Add links
Source: 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 keep. Consensus strongly suggests that the movie is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break, Break, Break (movie)

Break, Break, Break (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film is non-notable. There are no results for the film except for IMDB and Wikipedia (or merely in a list of other films). This result, searching name and actor, provides with no information. This result, with name and year, still produces hits on the Tennyson poem. This result does the same with Tennyson hits but none for the movie. Google books has only a listing of the name with no detail or Tennyson hits. The nominated page has no information and can never have information. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not know the notability policy for movies, but my opinion is that because the producer, writer and the main cast all have their own articles then this movie is notable enough for an article. Using google hits as a notability standard is biased against a film which had its heyday before the Internet. Putney Bridge (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires proof of notability in third party reliable sources. Either provide some or your vote above is invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putney, see WP:INHERITED. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a court case with lawyers trying to make points of law. I do not have to provide any proof of notability or consider WP:INHERITED (which happens to be an essay). My personal opinion is that I would have expect to see an article on the film and I wanted to make a valid point on google hits. Putney Bridge (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, you do. You're voting keep for an article in a deletion discussion based on whether or not it. is notable. If you're not providing anything to support your point then your argument isn't worth the bandwidth it took to upload it. AfD is a discussion, not a vote - worthless arguments are just that, worthless. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no I don't. As you say, this is a discussion, although you do contradict yourself saying I am voting. I am here to point out that history began before the Internet. A lack of google hits does not automatically make things non-notable. I am pointing out a flaw in the original nomination. The onus is just as much on the "delete" opinions to prove non-notability as it is to prove notability. To be honest, I do not really care about the article and I am just going to walk away. Putney Bridge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is actually on proving notability. There is no assumption of notability per default. Sorry, but that is how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would a silent movie made in 1914 have to have any internet footprint to demonstrate notability? Simple internet search engines are not going to determine if a 1914 silent film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) in my opinion. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I suggest you withdraw this WP:POINT [1] nomination of a film that obviously existed, and wait for someone with actual expertise in the sourcing of this field to judge whether this film was notable or not. Putney Bridge makes an excellent point regards the principles. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires proof of notability in third party reliable sources. Either provide some or your vote above is invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make demands upon editors offering good faith opinions. The GNG does not trump all other notability guidelines. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is AfD, not a vote. You have to respond to queries or your "vote" does not count. He must provide evidence that there is some kind of notability. There has been no evidence of such presented. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, so you need to provide evidence that there are third party reliable sources on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The film isn't in the current Halliwell's or Time Out film guides, which are both pretty exhaustive, and probably the only really good likely sources for a film of this age (at least, sources I can lay my hands on). I remain neutral however, pending more expert opinion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not inherited, so I don't give a fig who was in it. Fails WP:GNG, so shouldn't be included. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss merge to the article on the filmmaker, screenwriter, or one of the principles. Note: GNG is not policy and does not trump other notability guidelines. In cases of historic films, guideline grants and even points to exceptions to INHERITED... Per WP:NF "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." This film from the early history of cinema is the poster boy for such common sense considerations. Verifying their particpation through reliable sources is what's required, not deletion because a 1914 silent film does not have the ineternet or media coverage of a current majorly hyped studio blockbuster. Why the hurry to toss this out? Why no discussion about a perhaps suitable merge? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information to merge so there cannot be a merge. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote at first does seem to suggest the article should stay, until you look at the line directly beneath it:"An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." This is not the case with this article. All we know about it is who produced it and that it is "charming". — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per these results. Not the volume of mentions one would expect for a modern notable film, but notability is not temporary and therefore the fact that this film was from before movies started talking, let alone the internet was invented, should be taken into account. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those documents contain anything but the title of the movie. You need to have -substance- in a source for it to be considered a source. Furthermore, many of those results are to the poem still - "The Yale book of quotations‎ - Page 750" is to the poem. "The British film catalogue, 1895-1970: a reference guide" That is actually to the poem. "ASCAP biographical dictionary" that is to a song. "The International who is who in music" Also to a song. etc. Your link doesn't provide what you think it does and doesn't justify a keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQ. Not that it matters but this article was created by me but I still get a choice whether to keep or delete. I would keep or redirect into a list of films.. Himalayan 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Initial impression was of an older film, which suggested coverage, while available, might be more scarce. As someone who's studied film, I appreciate the importance of preservation of early cinema. We need, however, to consider the article on its own merits.

    This fails to meet WP:N (and WP:NOTFILM for that matter). Recognizing the online search bias toward modern subjects, I understand sources for historical topics may be offline or limited to specialized databases. As well as searching for evidence of study in gscholar, my search included academic databases on humanities and film resources. No sources—in fact no indication sufficient material for an encyclopedic article actually exists—turned up.

    Examining the article history as a starting point shows its origin is a series of rapid sub-stub creations, often of the form "X is a Y that Z". The article creator's contrib history (warning: long page) in that month shows their cookie cutter nature. Here, some random examples: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j. All, remain the same as they were 3 years ago. No evidence of unrealized potential, for expansion, is apparent.

    This is a short film. We don't know how short, because the article was never created with that detail; we don't know what it is about, because the article was not created with any detail. We can only assume that it exists or at one point existed, though no reliable sources were or were subsequently presented to WP:Verify that. –Whitehorse1 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOEFFORT is now a reason to delete?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should re-read my comment, MQS. Also, it's no coincidence the italicized word potential in my comment also appears in the main paragraph of the shortcut you linked. –Whitehorse1 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Normally, when a film is "non notable" it is new and/or insignificant, where sufficient reliable sources do not yet exist and/or may never exist. In this case, there seems to be a good-faith assertion that it is so old that sourcing simply isn't available anymore. While acknowledging the principle of notability, I would be far more willing to give a film in this predicament the benefit of the doubt than a more modern work. Having said that, if all we have is enough to meet WP:V, what can we really say about it that will be instructive to our readers? Thus, I officially have no opinion, leaning towards keep. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created as a series of stubs generated by Dr Blofield, of which he has been criticized for in the past simply because he does not check for notability first. We do not have enough to meet verifiability as there is no content. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now this argument ias about the good faith of the author? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a statement saying that this page was mass produced without any check of notability before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is different about this film than any other like say The Moon Riders (serial) etc? I think notability was taken for granted given the status of the actors/film directors at the time. These silent film articles all starred notable actors and were made my notable production companies, I believe that is what makes them notable.... If they were independent one off unheard of actors then you might question it. The problem with these silent film articles is the lack of knowledge online to expand them, note many of the films are lost so are unlikely to be expanded. Himalayan 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INHERITED. Ironholds (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a random assortment of articles that can never be longer than a sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that the article can NEVER be expanded is not convincing... and verifiable stubs are acceptable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then prove me wrong with a hard source that would allow for expansion. Unless you do, I will take your whole comments here as nothing more than a bluff. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat, technically the same information could be conveyed in List of American films of 1914. (if it was converted to a table like the others to display director and cast) ..... Himalayan

So, we keep an article because it is from 1914 no matter that there is no content or that there can never be content? >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you so confident that there can never be content? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL - I never said that there -wont- be content. I merely stated that there are no references after a very long look to see if there could be content -now-. Sure, maybe someone will publish a few books on this short, obscure film in the future. Who knows. But until then there is no reason to keep within our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been expanded by User:Steve. There's still not a lot there, but it's much better now. I'd say this is enough to establish notability for now. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers, but it should be noted that the one reference I've used is probably not enough to push it over the edge. As it stands, it doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline, but what prevents my voting one way or the other is the lack of access to potential sources. Without access to something like the Library of Congress, it's going to be difficult to determine whether this film received the necessary "significant" coverage after its release. Still, I could see which way the wind was blowing so I figured if this were to be kept—either through lack of consensus or through an outright decision from the closing admin—then we might as well make it the best stub it can be. Steve T • C 00:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's only one reference. This is evidence it received at least some coverage, and it suggests, to me at least, that there is more out there. I'll look at my university library on Tuesday; they have some resources that I think will help here. Anyway, regardless of whether this meets the notability guideline, the info you added certainly made it a better article, one that could actually be useful to interested persons. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't technically violate any policies, since all of the basic information is verifiable. And even if the article can't be expanded much further, there's no single, logical place to merge this content, so we might as well leave it where it is. I can't imagine that anyone outside of Wikipedia is complaining that we have too many articles on silent films. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not violating a policy is not an acceptable keep rationale. And there is a place to merge the content - the list of 1914 films or the director's page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not policy, and when we're talking about a film that probably predates every Wikipedian, I don't think we have to follow the guideline to the letter (although I do suspect that there's more information on the film out there somewhere). There's too much to merge into the list of films. And why merge to the director? Why not the writer, or one of the actors? Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is just as fine. They can all have details on it. Looking on their pages, most of them do have the details on it. There isn't too much to merge at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film directed by and starring some very notable silent directors and actors. It is difficult to find online sources for some of these early films, but thanks to Steve, an improvement has been made. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a participant does not make a place notable nor a production. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasantly surprised actually that Steve could find some info and an image. I looked for yonks to find info about these silent films before. Himalayan 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some proof would require more than one review that took forever to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per earlier arguments to do so, which I find more cogent than those against, particularly as the stress on the lack of any sources is no longer valid. See also WP:HB. Ty 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one real source per RS, as merely stating how many works were produced is not significant coverage. There is little to say this received significant coverage even in the one source that there is a paragraph for. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account the age and type of the film, the actors in it, and the sources available, I consider the inclusion of this article increases the usefulness of Wikipedia for the public both quantitatively and qualitatively, and its omission would lessen it. This is the end for which policies and guidelines were devised. Ty 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the review in Moving Picture World qualifies as significant coverage in a reliable source in my eyes. There is nothing in any guideline/policy that states there has to be more than one source to establish notability, although the GNG says that multiple sources are generally preferred. The concerns that the article could "never have information" have been addressed.--kelapstick (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Break, Break, Break in a "Film adaptation" section. I looked for resources about the film using my university account, but there does not seem to be sufficient real-world context for the film to have its own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC) D'oh. Neutral on the matter; really could not find anything more, but at the same time, it's not one by a no-name director with no-name people. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThe film was theatrically released, as confirmed by the review in Moving Picture World, which was the primary U.S. cinematic journal of its era. On its own terms, that would satisfy notability requirements. Furthermore, Pollard was a major filmmaker for his time and his cast consisted of notable actors. Again, pretending this isn’t good enough is just silly. If there is an extremely limited amount of contemporary information on the film, it could very well be that the film is lost – a sad fate that befell the majority of films made in the silent film period. The article says 58 prints were distributed, not that the Library of Congress has all 58 prints in its archive – the Library has the copyright registration of many films that are now considered lost and I would presume this is one of them. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - no significant coverage whatsoever; there is only one source that writes anything about it (the original review, which is copied in the UCSB link), and it wasn't "significant coverage", it was a one-paragraph movie review. All reasons for why people think it's noteworthy (its age, where it was published, its cast, etc.) are irrelevant. We don't go by our own personal deductions to decide what's notable, we go by what's published, and so if no one has cared enough to write much about this film and its supposed historic value in the past 100 years beyond a little blurb from an archive and a review from when it was released, all arguments that it's notable because of being old and historic are purely original. In addition to the notability issue, lack of quality sources prevents the article from ever being expanded past where it is now unless you introduced unverifiable statements or original research — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're mischaracterizing my argument and missing my main point, which is that it is not notable just because a handful of Wikipedia editors thinks it looks significant. Of course being a stub isn't a criterion for deletion, but the fact that it could never move beyond stub-class because of lack of sources doesn't really help. We aim to write encyclopedia articles, not a one-paragraph summary and a list of famous names attached to it. The content may very well be encyclopedic, and may be appropriate to be merged into another aticle, but does not deserve its own because it, as a topic in and of itself, is poorly covered in the rest of the world. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then your !vote should be merge, as delete is for material that has no place in the encylopedia, not material that should be in a different place. Ty 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd started out with the nominator saying that the article "has no information and can never have information." Well, a user found information and added it. Now we're hearing "that it could never move beyond stub-class because of lack of sources." This sounds like more hyperbole to me. Just because we haven't found the sources doesn't mean they don't exist. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, so I can't make my mind up either. It'd be a shame to lose what little information there is, but I'm unconvinced that the coverage can be classed as "significant". On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to merge this to. The only other option that springs to mind is to merge it to a new article. What do people think about List of American Film Manufacturing Company films of 1914, which could be the first of several based (to begin with) on these UC pages? The information from this article could be more useful to the reader by sitting alongside the wider context provided by a good lead and similar entries about the other films. Steve T • C 07:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this solution! I didn't want to delete, yet to keep this article on a topic that is not evidenced to have significant coverage from multiple sources... I think that the list could be formatted differently, like maybe not a table, or using different columns? I support a merge there; a better merge !vote to cast than my previous one in this AfD. :p Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a curious prejudice for bands and against films per WP:BAND, where an ensemble may be notable if it "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Surely the same should apply to films (substituting actors for musicians, that is). Ty 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that seems like a nonsense doesn't it? Not your post, but WP:BAND. By that logic, anything that two or more independently notable musicians do together is suitable for its own article, regardless of the sourcing. "On September 9, Roger Waters, Bono and Mark Knopfler went into a bar..." No. What distinguishes the notable from the not-notable—what tells us whether to write an article on a subject—should be independent coverage. Anyway, we're drifting from the point here. What I'm interested in seeing—ignoring issues of notability for now—is whether people think the information will be better presented for the reader in the wider context of that parent article. It'd be a lot of work to construct (150+ films may necessitate a split), but I'd be willing to do a share of the leg-work if it comes to it. Steve T • C 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of merging. The article has been expanded and sourced, as per the original rationale of bringing it to AfD in the first place. A short, stub article that is sourced is fine as it is. Lugnuts (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion to merge is because there is only one source that covers the film significantly: Moving Picture World. It does not seem clear that additional coverage could be found. For example, I looked at the director's index at the British Film Institute, and this film was not listed, though other silent films in that period were listed. The proposed list appears to contain films of a similar nature so they can at least be mentioned with the relevant details in a larger context. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Break,_Break,_Break_(movie)&oldid=1086371253"