 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Untitled
editHow is this a dictionary point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellhpapple (talk • contribs)
- It does nothing but define the phrase and gives an example (one of which it later says isn't even an example). No evidence of notability of the topic, so it's technically almost deletable immediately. One main concern I have is that this feels like a generic description (phrase as sum of its component words) rather than an actual formal term for this topic (again, sources supporting notability would prove that the phrase has a real meaning/use in its field). But it seems like an interesting idea, so here's your chance to make it more than just a definition of the phrase. Get some cites of scholarly research or commentary about this phenomenon? Actually, this seems like just a side-note to lost film, an article that does have a bunch of references on the phenomenon. Seems like "unknown" is just "unresearched" (either nobody's checked if it's "lost" or people suspect but can't prove if it's "lost"), so again it's not a distinct topic from "lost". Seems like it would be better to have a unified article about this important idea than to have information about slightly different variations scattered across different pages. DMacks (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok
editI'll try to do what I could, but please just give me a brake I like writing wikipedia articles about old movies, please don't delete this article, please.
- No worries. I do think it's interesting also and it could become a viable and good article, so I'm in no hurry here. I think if you can find one good reference (a specific page on a film archive site?) that actually uses this phrase with this exact meaning, it'll make a good enough case to keep this around on its merits. DMacks (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
One more thing
editOk I'll do that, but how do I put a reference on a page can you help me.
Moving it
editOK I'll just move this to the lost film article. I'll never bother anyone about a article they wrote were theirs nothing wrong with it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellhpapple (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 April 2010