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. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name, Age and Occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFF which states that films which were not released, even if shooting had commenced, should generally not have their own article. There is no indication this production or it's cancellation was particularly notable, either at the time or with the passage of time. Contested PROD; no clear merit offered in a redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. I deproDed the page (same nominator, see TP (indicating in my edit summary that given the state of the page and its content, even with no effort to look for further sources, a redirect should at least have been considered). I find both actions quite hasty to be honest (see page history). Most of all, this film has received considerable coverage. I had added some, some was on the page already, and plenty of other sources exist and are available in one click. As for the guideline referred to by the nominator and what it says about unfinished films, well, let's have a look: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Number of independent reliable books extensively deal with the failure of this production (add Lorentz in the Google Books search and try....). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mushy Yank: Thank you for your detailed rationale. Respectfully, at this moment I am not aligned with your position and refer back to WP:NFF which stipulates that the cancellation of the specific film would itself have to be notable to warrant an article. From my own searches of this, I could indeed see plenty of sources discussing that the film had undergone a period of shooting and that it did indeed, for at least a period of time, WP:EXIST. Whether that be backed up by 5 sources or 500 is inconsequential, as I have yet to determine a sufficient number to discuss this particular feature's cancellation specifically, by way of WP:SIGCOV. One of the citations offered, a book by Robert Ryan, notes: "after having gone way over budget with 90 days of shooting and nothing to show for the effort, RKO decided to shelve the unfinished film". The cancellation seems to be like it was simply a matter of costing too much, at a time when finances were stretched due to the matter of a world war. If you, or others, can find sufficient sources that cover the specifics of this film's cancellation, to a significant enough extent, that may help formulate the opinions of others, and indeed myself. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your reply. Please take the time to read the sources in the page at least, if you don't have time to read all the other that are available online (again add Lorentz to the Google books search), it is not only a matter of money and the page clearly says so. Haven't you read the latest version before taking it to Afd? (the 5 minute time span between my last edit adding those sources and your nomination, would make me think that is the case, but you can take your time and read it now) There were various issues: for example Lorentz was unable to cope with the schedule and requirements of a commercial feature film, Ryan had doubts about Lorentz who had so far only filmed documentaries.... It's in the page and it's sourced. Sources do not only mention 90 days of shooting and financial issues! I'm leaving it at that for the moment, Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to second this and thank Mushy Yank for his outstanding work in improving this page. It was the only dramatic feature of Pare Lorentz, a major filmmaker. The movie also started the career of actor Robert Ryan. Britfilm (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:HEY applies. Article has been vastly improved and multiple reliable sources have been provided. DonaldD23 talk to me 07:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the improved article now passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (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.