Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lone Hand Wilson (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. A Train^talk 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Hand Wilson (film)

Lone Hand Wilson (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1920 silent film, described as "minor" in Allmovie entry. Orphaned and unimproved since article was created in Oct. 2006. NawlinWiki 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Cant find anything that proves notability. IMDB entry is helpless and I cant find anything other than trivial mentions elsewhere. Corpx 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on starring role of Lester Cuneo; Google results are not unreasonable for a silent movie from 1920. Note: I've moved the article, since there's nothing else to disambiguate it from. --Groggy Dice T | C 12:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Google results are not a reason, IMHO, to keep something on wiki. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to have all the information in the encyclopedia article and to not have to go elsewhere to find out basic info and notability. Since this article has been around for a long time and the article doesn't give me a clue as to it's importance, then I say go. And even Groggy saying here that it is considered notable because Lester Cuneo starred in it. Well sorry Groggy, I have no clue as to who that actor is and even a line saying something like "Oscar winner Lester Cuneo was the lead actor" would give me some indication. But you didn't say that here and NO ONE said it in the article. So, based on the information here and in the article, I stand behind my reasons for prod'ing the article in the first place - based on what is written, it is not notable. Postcard Cathy 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OOOPS my mistake. I db emptied it. Also, I don't think an info box and only an info box is reason to keep an article. If it is notable, then someone should have SOMETHING to say about it in narrative form and no one does. Postcard Cathy 16:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a different wikiphilosophy. You focus on the "pedia" half of Wikipedia. The other half is that it is a wiki. The point of a wiki is that it's collaborative, and that all the work doesn't have to be done by the original contributor. So the current entry is just an infobox. It still provides useful links and information, and a starting point. If the article has to be recreated, it might end up with detailed text but no infobox the second time around. Considering the difficulty the average editor is going to have in researching a film that is not available in a modern video format, I think the lack of activity is understandable. Anyway, I've now added a basic narrative, as much as I feel comfortable with for a film I've never seen.

As for the WP:HOLE-ish arguments, brandishing one's lack of knowledge has never impressed me as a debating point. If someone were to say that they were a fan of silent movies, and considered Lone Hand Wilson non-notable, that would be something else. I may be no more knowledgeable about silent films than you, but I don't consider that a reason to go to Category:Silent films and start a deletion spree. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, for the exact reason given by Cathy above - the article contains almost zero information about the film. It also has no incoming links, except for a redirect - not even Lester Cuneo's page links here. Appears to be entirely non-notable. Terraxos 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  Cuneo's article currently contains no filmography, so it doesn't link to any of his films. I haven't decided how to work this film into his entry so I can wikilink it. Just copying the filmography from the "unreliable" IMDB site would raise RS issues. Adding this film alone, or a random selection of his films, would be arbitrary, since I don't know enough about his career to know which were his most significant films. As for the lack of other links, I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia's coverage of the silent film era is weak, and that articles that ought to link to it don't exist yet. We don't have an article for Lafe McKeee, for example, and his career extended into the talkie era. Deleting this article would just reinforce Wikipedia's recentist.shortcomings. However, I have wikilinked a mention of Lone Hand in Annette DeFoe's article, which is a start. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Google News Archives has 19 hits from the 20s; there is no imperative that this article be anything more than a stub until someone has an itch to scratch and wants to expand it. John Vandenberg 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  I was going to bring that up, too. As can be seen from the variety of towns in those results, the film was shown in towns all over the United States. Also, although "Lone Hand" is co-director Lafe McKee's only directorial credit on IMDB, he turns out to be a prolific actor who was in hundreds of films into the 1940s. Given the barriers that a film unavailable in today's video formats poses for casual research, it's best to preserve the article until someone knowledgeable in this field can expand it. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I am not looking for a doctoral dissertation on the subject or even to unorphan it. I am simply looking for a simple statement of importance and it could be one or two sentences long - such as why Cuneo is important. Postcard Cathy

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.