Nomination of Satan's Harvest for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Satan's Harvest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan's Harvest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nomination was was withdrawn. --Bensin (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eat Me (interactive fiction) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eat Me (interactive fiction) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eat Me (interactive fiction) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bensin, just for context, I hope the nomination isn't discouraging and I hope the deletion discussion yields support for more sourcing for the article, which seems to have almost enough, but not what I'd feel confident saying is self-evidently notable. It's a trend I appreciate does impact smaller independent games, like in interactive fiction spaces. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for notifying. --Bensin (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The outcome was to delete the article. My request to have it userfied was granted and it is now resting here awaiting one more source (assuming the last additions was not enough). --Bensin (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VIII[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VIII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Counterfeit Monkey for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Counterfeit Monkey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counterfeit Monkey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The result was not delete. --Bensin (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Swap (1979 film) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Swap (1979 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Swap (1979 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

The Film Creator (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The result was keep‎. --Bensin (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kill Fee for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kill Fee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill Fee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The result was keep‎. --Bensin (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get Outta Town (film)[edit]

Hello Bensin, could you please create an article for 1960 film Get Outta Town (film) starring Jeanne Baird? Byejai (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Byejai: Hello! Is there a reason you don't want to create the article yourself? You can click the red link and add the text and other users will help you with the formatting if needed. --Bensin (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Bensin, the reason is that i couldn't find enough sources to do the article by myself as it is not well known, to this date I have only did articles about people, so I thought that a more experienced user like you would help me with this situation, so could you still help me please?🙏🙏 Byejai (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive hosts the film here. I am unable to find further soruces, which I would want in order to create an article. User Cunard suggested here searching for sources through Wikipedia:Newspapers.com via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Maybe you can try that? Or maybe @Cunard: will agree to dig up two or three reliable references that we can use? --Bensin (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byejai (talk · contribs) and Bensin. Thank you for the ping. I found sources through searches in Internet Archive. I used the search terms "Get Outta Town" "Charles Davis" (the film's director) and "Get Outta Town" "Jeanne Baird" (an actress in the film). I also found sources in Newspapers.com and ProQuest using the same search terms. Here are some sources about the film:

  1. "Get Outta' Town". Boxoffice. 1961-06-05. ProQuest 1475978122. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Internet Archive.

    The review notes: "Strictly program-filler, in the pattern of innumerable current and past TV thrillers. This is a dull cops-and-robbers routine, for the action houses, the one about the ex-hoodlum who comes home to bury his young brother, found dead in a mysterious accident. The boy has been properly waylaid, slugged, mauled, knifed and left in the gutter. Police threaten to link the ex-hoodlum with recent crimes, his former girl friend locks the door against him and his mother ungraciously slams the door in his face. The message quite obviously reads: "Get Outta Town." ... This is for the situation where the first consideration of the customers is action and plenty of intrigue with cops and robbers and low-down characters."

  2. Grant, John (2013). A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Film Noir: The Essential Reference Guide. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Limelight Editions. p. 260. ISBN 978-1-55783-831-5. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Internet Archive.

    The book notes: "Reformed safecracker Kelly Olesen (Wilson) comes back to LA for the funeral of younger brother Tommy, but becomes suspicious, after talking with old flame Jill (Baird), about just how "accidental" Tommy's death was. He looks up old criminal buddies Tony Bunch (Kross) and Rico Lizari (Louis) and soon ascertains Rico is now working for the mob. Through flirting with Rico's wife, Claire (O'Connor), Kelly discovers Tommy was hired by Rico to make parts Tommy thought were for music boxes but were in fact bomb triggers used in mob assassinations. Kelly's urge to return to his old, violent criminal ways is almost uncontrollable. . . . An indie movie from before the term was invented, this is a fine example of what could be done on a low budget."

  3. Warren, Geoffrey (1960-02-27). "'The Transparent Man' Not Very Solid Movie". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Newspapers.com.

    The article notes: "Also showing at the Hawaii Theater is a modest but rather interesting feature, "Get Outta Town," starring Doug Wilson as Kelly Olson, the one who's told to leave, or else. This MCP release, directed by Charles Davis and written by Bob Wehling, is the story of an ex-punk who comes back to find the murderers of his brother. The story and dialogue are thin and the cast is very weak. However, the fact that it was made entirely on location around Los Angeles and was directed and photographed with care and talent does make some worthwhile difference."

  4. Dawson, Jim (2012). Los Angeles's Bunker Hill: Pulp Fiction's Mean Streets and Film Noir's Ground Zero!. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-1-60949546-6. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Internet Archive.

    The book notes: "Get Outta Town (1960), produced by actor Doug Wilson and director Charlie Davis, was a better-than-average low-budget black and white film about an ex-safecracker named Kelly who returns to Los Angeles for his brother’s funeral. (Its working title was The Day Kelly Came Home.) More than most Hollywood noirs of the forties and fifties, Get Outta Town has the gritty feel of a pulp magazine short story, with hard characters and workingclass dialogue. There is an extended scene on the Spring Street side of Los Angeles City Hall and a couple of shots around Second and Olive, but what makes this movie special is that a large portion was filmed inside the Dome Hotel Apartments at Second and Grand, giving a good sense of its layout, its small apartments, its corridors and its narrow balconies and stairways. When Miller Consolidated Pictures released the film as a program padder for The Amazing Transparent Man, the Hollywood Reporter (March 15) said, “Shot on local locations, Get Outta Town gains from this authenticity which is the film’s greatest asset.”"

  5. Billings, Josh (1963-02-07). "Get Outta Town". Kinematograph Weekly. Vol. 549, no. 2888. p. 19. ProQuest 2835081177.

    The review notes: "Unpretentious crime melodrama. It centres on a tough guy who defies the police and returns home long enough to solve the mystery surrounding his young brother's ugly death. There are a few exciting situations, plus a touch of popular romance, but neither the acting, direction nor the staging is twenty-two carat. Its artfully spaced rough stuff should, nevertheless, enable it to score with undemanding action lovers. Playable secondary hall "second." ... Points of Appeal.—Pugilistic plot, occasional thrills and handy footage."

  6. Glen (1960-03-30). "Get Outta Town". Variety. Vol. 218, no. 5. p. 6. ProQuest 1032399250.

    The review notes: "The trade screening of this film suffered from amateurish projection (mediocre equipment and bungling by the operator) so the technical aspect cannot be assessed with certainty. Presuming these to be satisfactory, the film amounts to an earnest but ill-fated effort, whose exploitation value is questionable. ... Robert Wehling, in attempting to be offbeat and authentic, has succeeded in being obscure and disappointing. Bill Holman's jazz score is fine. Director co-producer Charles Davis has selected some interesting L.A. locales. Larry Raimond and/or Meridith Nichalson provide refreshing flashes of good photography. Wilson's fairly good most of the time; Miss Baird is interesting and feminine; Lewis is satisfactory or better; Marilyn O'Connor (Mrs. Charles Davis) is polished as the syndicate man's unfaithful wife; Frank Harding and Steve Bradley are good as cops; Tommy Holden has some good moments in a small role; supporting players generally have the student-actor stamp. But, though Wehling provides some fair dialog at points, he has neither story to tell nor sufficient action to make up for the lack."

  7. "Get Outta Town, U.S.A., 1962". The Monthly Film Bulletin. Vol. 30, no. 348. January 1963. p. 48. ProQuest 1305823686.

    The review notes: "A rather contrived story of racketeers and the underworld. Quite well characterised, adequately acted and fast moving, but otherwise a routine and unimaginative low-budget production, rather cramped in style."

  8. Powers, James (1960-03-15). "Indie Prodution Suitable For Duals: "Get Outta Town"". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 159, no. 17. p. 3. ProQuest 2338311990.

    The review notes: ""Get Outta Town" is one of those film productions shot with a hope and a prayer plus a lot of faith, and then—with luck—sold to some releasing company on completion. It is not a polished production and dramatically. it has flaws. But it does have moments of raw vigor, and for its cost can be an adequate exploitation picture or an acceptable dualler. Miller Consolidated is releasing. ... Shot on local locations, "Get Outta Town" gains from this authenticity which is the film's greatest asset. The acting is capable and Larry Raimond's camera work is good. But the plot is not tight enough for the mystery-melodrama form the producers have chosen. Dialogue occasionally flares with a good line, but the plot structure is too often loose and diversionary. In the editing, there is a tendency to hang on a reaction shot that is detrimental to pace."

Cunard (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Thank you! @Byejai: I have now created the article using the sources that Cunard provided. Perhaps you can update the article and add a description of the plot? --Bensin (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Radiolab episodes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Radiolab episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Radiolab episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Belbury (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The result was keep‎. --Bensin (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More