Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lawful Cheater

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The result was withdrawn, no other arguments for deletion. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawful Cheater

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

Unreferenced. Unknown notability. One line article Cssiitcic (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm finding some sources for this, so I'm going to attempt a rescue. I'll make my decision after I'm finished.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I spoke too soon. Other than one sole source, there's nothing here that shows that this lost film is ultimately notable enough for its own entry. It might potentially be worth a redirect to Clara Bow since she's the #1 thing that came up in searches about this film, but I'm not really sure that people would be specifically searching for this film and if they are, that they're searching in relation to Miss Bow. I don't exactly think it'd be right to redirect just to her when there are several people involved, such as Frank O’Connor.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote changed to Keep, see below.Redirect to List of lost films. Between Google News archives and Google Books the existence of the film can be verified. I don't think any of the sources will enable the film to satisfy WP:N or WP:NF so that it can stand on its own but I would be very happy to change my !vote to keep should someone be able to do so. Otherwise, I think it's best that the film be added as an entry to List of lost films where a short description of it can be attached and where it is less likely to be removed over time. A concern I have with redirecting to Clara Bow is that the biographical article can easily be rewritten to remove any mention of this film. A reader who searches The Lawful Cheater and is directed to Clara Bow's article may not be served well if there is no information about the very film for which they searched. List of lost films was created specifically for films like these, whether or not they have their own articles, and I think redirecting to that list and creating an entry would serve this subject and a potential reader best. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would oppose outright deletion compared to a redirect. A redirect will serve a useful purpose and provide an easier option for expansion should adequate reliable sources be found to create a stand-alone article. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per improper deletion rationale that fails WP:Deletion policy. I am quite unhappy that this article was sent to AFD only 60 seconds after being created. Further, the deletion rationale is not supported by WP:DEL#REASON and appears to lack of consideration of WP:DEL#CONTENT / WP:ATD. Where there any improvement tags as suggested by WP:ATD? Did waiting a full 60 seconds allow any consideration toward the article author or WP:WIP? No. While others above decided it might be fine to redirect the title elsewhere, I believe it far better for Wikipedia and its readers to actually give them sourced content and context about the film to increase their understanding of the topic. Being "lost" does not mean we ignore that in 1925 this film received coverage before and after it was released,[1] nor that we ignore that it has made it into the enduring record... even if now considered a lost film. We do not expect nor demand that a film from the very beginnings of the modern film industry would have still have in-depth coverage 87 years later. Its enough for us that it has made it into the enduring record, and even while "lost" still receives analysis and comparison in later books. Here, we protect cinema history... not redirect it to where pertinant and sourcable information becomes lost. Will the article remian short? Likely. But that's perfectly fine, and is itself no reason to redirect something which has independent and sourcable notability. Major kudos to User:Tokyogirl79 for her begining to adress the addressable issues. Following her lead, I myself took it further.[2] More to do, certianly... but needing work is rarely a sound reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
modified above to strike my preachiness. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per recent expansion the article clearly meets GNG and NF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most definitely. This film was produced in 1925 and is a silent film. 1925 was a pivotal year in Clara Bow's career with her appearing in more motion pictures than any other year. Whether the film is lost or not, it deserves an entry on Wikipedia. Films appear all the time and who knows? someone out there might have a print in their attic or garage unknowingly. Koplimek (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody should be nominating an article for AFD 1 minute after creation. Especially as the sources prove notability. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep per above rationale and improvements. I'm impressed at the amount of info that got added! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - this is now a well-crafted, interesting article with excellent RS, I think some BARNSTARS are in order. It is absolutely disgraceful pouncing on an article 1 minute after its creation: let us have some common sense here. Well done everyone for saving this worthwhile article - AfD functioning at its best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's done is done and what's been said has been said but I would politely ask any future !voters to not make any further disparaging remarks about the nominating editor or his actions, please. The article will be kept, there's no doubt about that any longer. Feel free to improve the article further or to comment on the merits of the article per policies and guidelines but further comments about the editor are absolutely unnecessary. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn After seeing the improvements made to the article. I withdraw my nomination-Cssiitcic (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (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.