Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Auctioneer (film)

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 WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 02:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Auctioneer (film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article only cites a single reference and I couldn't find anything else out about the movie when I did a search for it. It doesn't even seem to mentioned in any other books or anything. There's definitely no in-depth reviews of it from what I can tell or anything that would qualify it to pass WP:NFILM's notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that comment. Chicago was, I believe, the second-largest city in the United States at the time. Variety is a national publication, and while LA was a smaller city than it has become since, it was bigger than Hooterville. If you were reading these "local newspaper" reviews, you'd know many of them have reviews as long as the major dailies. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you should review WP:GNG. The film criteria you point to is "other evidence of notability". The film and the other nominated both meet GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! ... Just to be accurate here, the search pulls up 10,111 matches in Newspapers.com, including, but not limited to, reviews of the film in the Miami Herald, The San Francisco Examiner, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Honolulu Advertiser, the Times of Shreveport, Louisiana, the Washington D. C. Evening Star, the Sacramento Bee, The Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) Journal (multiple reviews in Canadian newspapers), the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Fort Lauderdale News. Newspapers.com usually doesn't have small town local newspapers in its databank. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piping up again here to say that the papers we have access to may possibly depend on the subscription level (I don't access through the Wikipedia library, so I don't know what others here see), but Newspapers.com has thousands of different papers and small towns are represented in that. Abbeville, Alabama is a pretty small town, as is Hurley, Wisconsin. Sikeston, Missouri is arguably a small town (though certainly not as small as they come). And small town paper reviews can contribute to GNG. Anywho, back to our show. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to echo what DiamondRemley39 said Fort Lauderdale News is a local news source. So is The Edmonton. A lot of other local newspapers where referenced in the other AfD by DiamondRemley39. Including the Rushville Republican, and the San Pedro Daily Plot. Even today the population of Rushville is only 6,000 people. It was probably way less when this film came out. So, I have no clue what your talking about. Maybe it's something to do with subscription levels or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD Adamant1 references is for The Last of the Duanes (1924) nominated by them today. Adamant1, if you could discuss each of these discussions you've deleted only in their own discussions, that'd be good. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: My comment didn't have anything to do with the other AfD. It was about sources that are available in Newspaper.com.
That's not an echo, that's you talking on your own. Don't act like we are agreeing on anything here except that, as you say, you don't know what I'm talking about. I never said close to what you're saying about those places. I didn't comment on them. I commented on the holdings of a resource you haven't accessed. Adamant1, where are the goalposts now, exactly? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the perception is a generation issue (no offense intended). I'm guessing that I'm not the only one here who is old enough to remember first-hand what it was like before the internet. Back in the days when film companies took out paid ads in newspapers, but legitimate show business columnists did the reviews. In the era when this film was released, there was no television, not a lot of radio, and newspapers were serious business. In 1927, they were all located in one city or another. In fact, there was no cable news until the latter decades of the 20th century. Of course, they were LOCAL. But big cities. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter anyway. WP:NFILM says capsule reviews, which is what local newspaper reviews are, can't be used to establish notability. Not that people won't ignore it and vote keep anyway. Like the person who disregard it at the same time as citing WP:NFILM as the reason for their keep vote below my message. I'm sure DiamondRemley39 will have some convenient justification for why it should be discarded also. I'd also love to know how you know I haven't accessed newspapers.com. It's not some esoteric website that only the chosen few on here have access to. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know where I said Chicago is a small town. What I did say was that just because Chicago is a bigger town doesn't mean there aren't local newspapers there. Whatever arbitrary line you want to draw between a big town and small one isn't really relevant to what type of source it is or if it's acceptable to notability. That's why notability is about regional and national sources. Neither of those things have anything to do with town size. It's about how much area the newspaper covers. Which should be pretty obvious. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to point you to that, Adamant1. I'd commented with three citations, and you then wrote, "Paragraph mentions in small town local newspapers don't cut it. There has to be regional/national in-depth sources. Almost all films pre-internet era had mentions or "reviews" in local newspapers to gin up attendance to local theaters and it does't make a film particularly notable just because some local newspaper did a brief overview of it.". Two of those small [sic] towns were Chicago and Los Angeles, though I'll give you one pass because my Variety citation didn't say "Los Angeles". DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation was for the Chicago Daily Tribune. I must agree with you, Adamant1, that it should be pretty obvious. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People have provided more then two sources and did I specifically mention either of those sources in my first comment? No I didn't. So good on you for nitpicking the two sources from large towns that I never said anything about and didn't have anything to do with the point I was making. I'm done with this conversation now since it's pretty clear your not going to be reasonable it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but nits are picked to make things not lousy. If I may quote Margaret O'Brien, but about Chicago... It isn't a town, Adamant1. It's a city. Finally, when you made your comment, Variety and the Chicago Tribune were 2/3 of the two papers mentioned in the AfD. See the revision here DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Chicago Tribune says "It's the most-read daily newspaper of the Chicago metropolitan area." So it's still local paper as far as I'm concerned and like I said if you want to call it a town, or a city, or the damn woods it doesn't matter because that's not what the notability guidelines are about anyway. Your just splitting hairs over semantics that aren't even in the guidelines and being argumentative about it for no reason. Stop the canvasing already. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have not canvassed. Second, the source itself does not need to meet a notability guideline; I now understand that that is the source of your confusion. Third, you're the one who seems to have more respect for big city publications over small towns ones, so if you're going to insist upon classifying so, know that I'm paying attention. Next, the classic film community on Wikipedia may address your arguments until the cows come home. So if you're indeed over this, unwatch the page if you haven't already. I won't ping you again, but I will comment more as is necessary until the AfD is closed. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (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/The_Auctioneer_(film)&oldid=1073184908"