Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan (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. Clear consensus, but rename as indicated by Arxiloxos DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pan (film)

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

Contested prod. Reason was "Any released film from 1922 (and based on a Knut Hamsun book) is likely to be notable. Even if not, merge/redirect to Pan (novel) would be a better option." Most films from 1922 are not likely to be notable. Wikipedia has articles on 246 films from 1922 and IMDB has 1846 films from 1922 listed with 93.5% of them with less than 5 votes. That the film was based on a book by Knut Hamsun is irrelevant because notability is not inherited. The film article doesn't say anything about the novel it's based on and the novel's article only says that the novel has been adapted into a film 4 times. It doesn't say anything about those films besides what years they were released. A merge or redirect to Pan (novel) is not the best option either considering there are 14 films with the name "Pan" and most of them are not based on the novel of the same name. For An Angel (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should improve, not demolish, stubs on subjects of historical importance. Here's a 1997 Michael Wilmington review in the Chicago Tribune: "A fine film and a real discovery."[1] Norwegian film expert no:Gunnar Iversen describes the film as being "important in Norwegian film culture".[2] UCLA professor Arne Lunde discussed the film in his article "Knut Hamsum at the Movies in Transnational Contexts."[3] Hamsun himself apparently didn't like the film so much, according to Donald Dewey's article in the Scandinavian Review ("If the public liked Pan, the author himself wasn’t too impressed. Reached by telephone by a reporter for his reaction to the screen adaptation, the fleetingly personable Hamsun snapped “I don’t understand film and I am in bed with the flu,” and hung up."[4], p.30. There's more potential sources hidden behind "snippets" in GBooks[5], including something in a 1923 issue of the Scandinavian Review. Mention may be appropriate here of WP:BEFORE, WP:OFFLINE, and WP:BIAS.I do think the article could (eventually?) be retitled to Pan (1922 film), ~~although according to the DAB page there apparently aren't yet articles on the other films based on Hamsun's novel~~. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there is an existing article for Pan (1995 film), which I've now added to the DAB page. I suggest renaming this article Pan (1922 film).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested merging them to a "Film adaptations" section under Pan (novel). As it stands now there is not enough information to warrant separate articles for each adaptation. Even the 1995 film article has no references. For An Angel (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos, it seems to have a decent amount of coverage for 90 year old film. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established, and it should have dawned on nominator even without the added reference. __meco (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Without the added reference the article would have no references. The entire article when I first saw it said only, "Pan is a Norwegian film from 1922" and that's ALL it said since its creation over 5 years ago. It said nothing about the novel it was based on. I looked for references before but couldn't find any. If there are more references out there then they should be added. The one that's there now doesn't qualify as "significant coverage" in reliable sourceS as it only spends 2 whole sentences discussing it and is still only one source. For An Angel (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apology! I should have checked what the article looked like when you nominated it. __meco (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Chicago Tribune reviewed a 1922 Norwegian film, it is notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article as been improved, and more can be done. Being originally unsorced was a far better reason to look for sources, than delete.... and in finding it covered in books, even if full text is available only WP:OFFLINE, we do not delete films sourcably important to Norweigian cinematic histoty... we instead try to improve them, even if it takes a while. WIkipedia knows that it is itself a work in progress and does not demand immediate perfection. The way I see it, needing work is no reason to delete what can be fixed, and stub articles are fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 1 March 2012 (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.