Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perils of the Jungle (1953 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perils of the Jungle (1953 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable movie with no coverage in reliable sources, and since it's 60 years old and a pretty unremarkable film I guarantee nothing'll show up soon. Beerest355 Talk 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per Wikipedia:NOTFILM: "The film features significant involvement (i.e., 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." The film was directed by George Blair, the screenplay was written by Robert T. Smith (his only screenplay) and it stars Clyde Beatty and Phyllis Coates. As for nominator's guarantee nothing'll show up soon: There is a short review in The New York Times. --Bensin (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't call this film a major part of anybody's career. Don't forget that most notability guidelines still apply to a film. Generally, satisfying only one part of a guideline is not what I would call noteworthy. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for what can be considered "a major part" of somebody's career, the guideline really doesn't say and I suppose that is open for interpretation. Personally I'd say that if it is a starring role (for a notable actor) it is a major part of their career. Also, Robert T. Smith only wrote this single screenplay. According to my calculations this film constitutes 100% of his screenwriting career. --Bensin (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a New York Times review. It's a copy of the AllRovi entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the review is signed by media historian Hal Erickson. --Bensin (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am singularly unimpressed by Erickson. His AllRovi reviews are so error-ridden I question whether he has even seen many of the movies he wrote about. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, it took me about a minut to find that review you guaranteed would not show up soon. --Bensin (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It wasn't User:Clarityfiend who issued the guarantee, but rather User:Beerest355. --Bensin (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call that a review. Beerest355 Talk 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because you disagree with the reviewer or because you think the review is too short? If it is the latter, then you may not be aware that there are considerably shorter reviews. --Bensin (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I wouldn't call it a review as he doesn't criticize the film, unless you consider "it looks like two television episodes" a criticism. It's more of a satiric summary. Beerest355 Talk 17:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me what you're opposing most of all is the fact that a review actually existed and, short that it may be, was published in a reputable newspaper by a well known reviewer. --Bensin (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Erickson is a film reviewer? It's not a review. It wasn't even written as a review. It was written as a synopsis. Claiming it's a review is silly. Beerest355 Talk 22:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say it's a review if it has the word "review" in the title, as in the case at The New York Times. --Bensin (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bensin. FTR whether referenced info to add to an article shows up soon or years from now is not a determining factor in an articles viability. MarnetteD | Talk 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect to Clyde Beatty. This is a pretty weak entry. My rule of thumb for 50s films is at least 100 votes in IMDb (this one has 12) or at least some well-known actors. Rotten Tomatoes also shows no reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Older films tend to have less votes on IMDb than newly released films. If you look at votes alone to determine notability it would probably seem that cinematic history began with The Godfather (1972) and ended with The Dark Knight Rises (2012).[1] ;-) Not sure I'm reading this right... Is it your opinion that Clyde Beatty and Phyllis Coates are not well-known actors? --Bensin (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for 10K votes for a 50s film, but 12 is very, very, very low for that era. Heck, it'd be low for the late 20s. Beatty is not known as an actor. I'd never heard of Coates, and I'm a big fan of early films. How do you explain away the lack of Rotten Tomatoes reviews - not a single one? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about Phyllis Coates either, but in the era of digital highways, maybe we can find out somehow... ;-) (139 titles on IMDb. Just sayin'...) --Bensin (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While notability is not inherited, the exception is films. --Bejnar (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2013 (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.