 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Unsourced material
editI removed the following material from the article:
In February 1956, Jack Warner sold the rights to all of his pre-December 1949 films, including Stark Mad, to Associated Artists Productions (AAP). It is unknown if the film was copied on to 16mm, but it did not show on television. The listing of the film is still kept in the television syndication package. In 1969, UA donated 16mm prints of some Warner Bros. films(to the Library of Congress) from outside the United States.[citation needed]
This material has been added to a fairly large number of film articles in the past. There are multiple problems with it.
- It is, of course, unsourced.
- As stated, there is not showing of relevance to the specific film the article is about
- In the past, when I researched the information, the specific film that is the article's subject was not even listed in the AAP catalog
So, to be included in the article, the information needs to be sourced, and it needs to be shown to be relevant to the film. That is, it needs to be established that it is one of the films that UA supposedly donated to the LOC, and it needs to be shown (via a source) that it was among the films whose rights were sold to AAP. Without sourcing, all we've got is a unsourced non-specific statement of possibilities. BMK (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- A neutral pointer to this discussion was placed on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment If an editor removes content on the basis it is unsourced policy manadates that it should remain out until a source is provided (see WP:BURDEN). I've got to be honest, I don't think there is much value in asserting policy on Stub class articles (unless one is challenging topic notability) but ultimately it is the challenger's prerogative to remove the content. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)