Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Above the Limit


 * 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The result was   speedy Withdrawn. I concede. I don't agree but others have made good points. Good improvement of the article, as always, MQS. StarM 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Above the Limit

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no evidence that this short is notable. While its age is an issue, there is no evidence that it was notable at the time and ghits don't explain its significance. "Article" lists only its stars, and without material - there is nothing to expand. Thoughts? StarM 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  StarM  02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A film made in 1900?? This is something that very well may be of historical notability and found in historical archives of fimmaking. You have set a quest and I will gladly do a bit of research. 1900?? Wow.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In historical archives: . More coming.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as I just said on my talk (let's keep it here for sake of finding), I don't think evidence that it existed means it's notable. There's no doubt there's a record of the short, but that doesn't mean it's historically significant or notable. If you find something that establishes notability, I'm happy to reconsider, but I don't see it at that link. StarM  03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment responding to this comment, in the interest of keeping it here, I don't know that a record of its existence is the same as preserving it, but I'm open to input. It's bedtime here so I may not be around until tomorrow evening but I'll pop in when I can. As I said, I may be wrong and am happy to reconsider and/or withdraw if there's evidence it should be kept. StarM  04:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Did some digging, detective work, expansion, and sourcing. Remember that old coot who played Dorothy's Uncle Henry in the original The Wizard of Oz in 1939? That was actor Charles Grapewin and this, when he was 30 years old, was his very first film EVER. He was in vaudeville at the time, and returned to it... not making another film until 1929. I have not so far found it in (history of film?) college curricula (yet), nor have I found any 1900 news articles about it (likely impossible), but I have found it historically archived in a number of places... and well... the Library of Congress kind of seems like a reliable source and is shows (as do other sources) it "selected for preservation in a national archive"... so that should meet WP:GNG. But not to wait on that one thought... in WP:NF, under "Other evidence of notability, there's 1) "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema"... well, in 1900 the United States did not have a national cinema, so this film might be seen as one of the milestones in the development of US film... and then there's 2) "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career"... this was Grapewin's debut film. He is the only one credited (as best I can find) as being in the film, so his contribution was the most important in the film's making, as a notable person, and as the very beginning of his film career. So... pick one or pick all three as I offer this little bit of notable history to Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per Michael Q Schmidt - great digging! Artw (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly the article has moved on substantially since it was nominated, and it certainly meets WP:NF. --Ged UK (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.