Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Grand Cirque (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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Cirque (film)

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

Le Grand Cirque (film) (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)

I can only find a single review of this movie [1] and that appears to be a blog-type affair of doubtful authority. Absent some further 3rd party coverage, I don't think we are seeing notability here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in search. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing to Keep based on newly identified sources below. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: entry in the Dictionnaire mondial des films; page on the Unifrance website; at least this review in English; various mentions related to its depiction of pilots during WWII. Seems really notable enough.MY OH MY 19:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are worthless, barely listings - but that review is useful. Might be enough with a little good will. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly indifferent: watched it once based on Clostermann being interesting, like the poster, did an article on a film released conventionally in a major film-making country because it seemed like an interesting addition, didn't think about it much more than that. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vote by MY OH MY. A major French theatrical release, as confirmed by its elaborately artistic poster, its two-hour running time, a well-known director and familiar names in the cast. Here is its IMDb entry and here is its entry in French Wikipedia. Of course it needs additional inline cites, but its notability should not be in question. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
....I'm not seeing any sources of the type required by WP:NFILM. The frWP article would not fly here for lack of such sources. Database listings mean zip. IMDB is crowd-sourced and does not contribute to notability. The only usable source presented so far is the one additional review found. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My contention, which may or may not be supported by consensus, is that any film which is listed in at least three databases acceptable for inclusion under "External links", is by definition sufficiently notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia. It should be at least expected that such a film's entry is submitted by a user who is sufficiently experienced to format and categorize it properly as well as append at least one inline cite. Links to film reviews and other details can be subsequently added by contributors practiced in such matters.
As pointed out above by this entry's creator, it is a "film released conventionally in a major film-making country" and, glancing at its French Wikipedia entry, one can also see five links confirming this film's standing — Allociné, AllMovie, Internet Movie Database, LUMIERE and The Movie Database (under the title "The Big Circus", with a theatrical poster that is different from the one appended to the infobox). Another database, RadioTimes.com, also has a listing for The Big Circus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My contention, which may or may not be supported by consensus, is that any film which is listed in at least three databases acceptable for inclusion under "External links", is by definition sufficiently notable for inclusion in English Wikipedia All I can say to that is, good luck with rewriting WP:NFILM then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive any formatting/spelling faux pas please, as I cannot get the hang of the mobile version...

I am genuinely struggling to see why any film that's had a conventional theatrical release isn't automatically notable presuming something verifiable can be written about it, even if it's of low importance. It might be me but I am seriously struggling to see in what circumstances that could open up Wikipedia to a slew of unsuitable articles. The current criteria are somewhat contradictory and to some degree circular. It also seems like the notability criteria are overly skewed towards digitised English language sources. Common sense surely has some basis here, especially as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.

  • It can be verified that this film existed and had a theatrical release in France.
  • Peclet won an Oscar and both he and some of his other works pass notability, presuming those articles have been scrutinised properly and stable doors aren't being belatedly bolted.
  • Glostermann is a notable historical figure.
  • The film has a couple of minor quirks, being one of a very few to deal with the Free French Air Force, and for the oddity of being a French film with a large percentage of English dialogue.

I'm not going tooth and nail for a film that wasn't actually that good but I am bemused with this whole policy of drive-by notability notices from people who then largely avoid any interaction to address whether something can be salvaged. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BNF Gallica has an extensive collection of old newspapers in France. This [2] talks about the film in the upper left corner, this under the Montargis heading along the right side [3]. This under Cinema in the upper left [4] Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There all small columns about the film, but it gained critical attention at the time, we have more than enough for a stub. The Gallica search has more than enough, this from Algeria talks about it, [5], second column from the left, about half way down. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the documents are funny, do a search for "Clostermann" in each and you'll find them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we are getting somewhere! Rather than these strained monologues about how everyone should ignore WP:NFILM just because, here is some actual in-depth newspaper coverage. That should do it. Probably need to attach a footnote to these links though so readers know to search for the columns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For many topics, a simple Google search isn't a good way to determine notability. This is clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 14:07, 1 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Le_Grand_Cirque_(film)&oldid=1137011093"