Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Escape (film) fact versus fiction
regarding views that the article is "nicely sourced"'': Actually take a look at the article and count how many "facts" or "assertions" there are relative to how many of them actually have a "source", much less a |verifiable source, attached to them. Consider the Allies Characters section first, which depends on only two inline sources (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/wartime-heroism-the-real-hero-of-the-great-escape-471769.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/may/11/guardianobituaries.secondworldwar). There is nothing about Alvin Vogtle in either of those articles (obituaries about Eric Foster, a technical advisor for the film), so that set of assertions lacks sources. Neither source mentions the kind of motorcycle the fictional character Hilts rode in the film, or anything about it being anachronistic, much less ''how'' or ''why'' it was decided to use a 1960s era model bike in the production (if indeed it is a 1960s model). Neither obituary references the assertion that McQueen insisted on the motorcycle scenes despite lack of historical basis. The assertion about Hilts's likelihood of execution rather than solitary confinement appears to be complete |speculation. In fact, only the last two sentences in the Hilts passage are supported by credible sources and should just be covered in the film article (which they are already). In the next five listed characters with any kind of content attached to them (a character list is already in the film article and does not need duplication here) there are at a minimum 10 assertions, of which only three seem to be supported by a source of some kind. Of those three, http://www.historyinfilm.com/escape/real10.htm one is completely unsourced in itself and is not a |reliable source. This is in only one section of the article. There are literally dozens of other assertions in the rest of the article and only five ''non''-inline citations cover them. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing if four of those five sources actually support the very few passages to which they're attached since they are hardcopy and not online. However, I doubt that the creator of this article has them either since they and the related material were shifted from the main article; I would not attribute a source to material I'm adding to an article &ndash; even if I'm just copying it from another Wikipedia article &ndash; without first |verifying the source is valid (otherwise we're just citing Wikipedia). All I'm asking is that editors actually look at the article and the meager list of sources. (It's interesting that those who characterized this article as well-sourced left the Unreferenced tag in place, although JuleH's identification of possible sources is productive
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NOR||WP:RS||WP:V (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)