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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Western (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article is ill-defined and unsourced, and the talk page demonstrates that there's no consensus for criteria, but rather that it's a hopeless mess. This term and others like it have indeed been used in discussion of film history, but evidently can be applied in wildly opposing ways. Much of the article consists of a list, which has served as a magnet for clashes of personal taste and opinion. Editors have questioned the page's existence for years. I just happened past it, was dismayed by the article, also, and saw that a deletion was proposed last summer. It was a procedural misfire, so I thought I should submit it. It looks like the article has had more than enough time for consensus and sources to emerge, and they have not.

Quotes from the talk page:

"This is OR, an article that feels like some first year film student's misbegotten post-modern ramblings."

"Not an encyclopedia article. Citing not a single source, this "article" is nothing more than a very opinionated essay. As written, it belongs on someone's personal blog - not in an encyclopedia."

"...I see no grounds for an article here."

Thank you. Ale And Quail (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ? ? Pardon, but who made which statement and in what context? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I hoped to give a quick sample of the tenor of the Talk page, but pardon me if it was too sloppy leaving them unmoored. It might be better to direct you to the talk page than try to reproduce and attribute those discussions more fully here? Certainly the context for some was past versions of the article, with particular sins that have been reduced, but the talk page seemed to me dominated by the recurring theme of editors' objection to the article as a whole, and that was what I hoped to convey. Don't know if it's best to cut these fragments, if that rather failed. Ale And Quail (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh... old talk page comments about what to add to the list or remove from it... and made toward earlier versions than what you brought here.

1. unsigned comment added by Xenomorphs 11:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC) toward this version of 1 year ago: what you brought here was just a tad out of context from his longer comment "Ah, Hyper Realism in Westerns. This is OR, an article that feels like some first year film student's misbegotten post-modern ramblings. Historical accuracy has never been the point of Westerns or War movies or ... basically all of Literature. I wouldn't mind so much if there was any way of proving the idea presented here, but the outside links (two of them) are broken and no one seems to be able to actually find sources. I know Wiki's policy is to keep articles, even really bad ones, assuming that they can be fixed, but there is nothing here other than pointing out that, yes, almost all Westerns are "revisionist" (whatever that means)".
2. unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC) toward this vandalized version of 2 years ago: "Not an encyclopedia article. Citing not a single source, this "article" is nothing more than a very opinionated essay. As written, it belongs on someone's personal blog - not in an encyclopedia."
3. User:DanielCD 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) comment toward this version from 9 years ago "...I see no grounds for an article here."

So pardon me, but I see your chosen examples as representing a much longer history of this article slowly being discussed and improved. As Wikipedia is far from complete, such talk page discussion is exactly what is needed for an admittedly imperfect work-in-progress. There is no hurry that it ever be complete, nor any mandate that everyone'e efforts concentrate on one topic seen as needing more work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but possibly rename Anti-Western film genre and clean up. There are plenty of reliable sources for the genre.[1][2][3][4] However, a lot of the examples don't really qualify. Also, since it started in the '60s, earlier films probably shouldn't be cited as examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup per Clarityfiend. I think such article is not just notable but also necessary. Other examples of sigcov:

• Campbell, Neil.“Post-Western Cinema.” A Companion to the Literature and Culture of the American West. Cured by Nicholas S. Witschi. pp. 409-424.
• Prats, Armando. “His Master’s Voice(over): Revisionist Ethos and Narrative Dependence from Broken Arrow (1950) to Geronimo: An American Legend (1993).” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews. 9.3 (1996). pp. 15-29.
• Hoffman, Donald. “Whose Home on the Range? Finding Room for Native Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans in the Revisionists Western.” MELUS 22.2 (1997). pp. 45-59.
• Kitses, Jim. “Introduction: Post-Modernism and the Western.” The Western Reader. Cured by Jim Kitses and Gredd Rickman. pp. 15-31.
• Mariani, Giorgio. “Reimmaginare il passato. Il mito della frontiera, la violenza e il cinema western 'revisionista' (1982-1993).” Un fascino osceno. Guerra e violenza nella letteratura e nel cinema. Cured by Stefano Rosso. pp. 108-150.

The article is in poor shape, but AFD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 11:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK, it needs cleaned up. But deleted? Where will this content go? dino (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for responding, everyone, and it seems good that there's consensus. I'm less experienced than you all seem to be, so help me understand, if you like. I'm concerned and curious: is the cleanup that has not happened for years, despite requests, going to become likely now? Will the page be better curated? I'm inferring that you all are relatively confident that when the right process is applied, things will improve. When I try to read up on policies and practices, for these matters and others, I find myself lost in a labyrinth of docs; some people clearly do better and know better. Like you folks, probably. :) If this is beyond the scope of this discussion, ignore me, give a pointer, or whatever. Thanks! Ale And Quail (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ale And Quail: Though it seems you already may have, you may always officially "withdraw" your nomination and await closure. And then you have the option of following deletion policy and tagging it for improvements per the found sources? There is really no hurry that it must be done, and you might even choose to do it yourself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Michael. It may make no difference, but I don't mean to withdraw the nomination; I was probably just over-polite there. After finding the talk page to show, over quite a long term, a decent consensus that the page was inherently troubled--built on an insufficiently definable term--I thought the same consensus might be found here. I could find the motivation to submit the AfD the right way, but cleanup would need someone who believes in the basic project of the page. Potential sources have been linked, but I'm not concerned about the absence of claims to what "revisionist western" means. Rather the absence of any end or bound to those claims! :) It's hard for me to see from the "keep" point of view, but to try and contribute something--If the majority here wants to keep, how about renaming as Clarityfiend ponders? Would a title that explicitly refers to the 1960s and 1970s help fix the bounds of the page? Only one of several axes of drift, but probably the simplest to nail down. Ale And Quail (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as "revisionist western" is a term used in and by multiple sources, the article will benefit from continued editorial attention and tune-up over time, but not deletion. There is no hurry that it MUST be done immediately. Honest and forthright impatience is not always in the project's best interest. WP:WIP, WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPROVE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:16, 16 January 2015 (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.