Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border Vengeance


 * 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 keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Border Vengeance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is nominated for deletion: in spite of its "public domain" status and rediscovered negative film copies (see List of rediscovered films, the notability is absent. Also, the page is a stub, and the cast from the 1930s are all but forgotten.  Even "Internet Archives" source may not be enough to have this article "kept". --Gh87 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NF as the film features significant involvement by at least 7 people deemed notable enough to have their own articles. The fact that the article is a stub is not a valid argument for deletion. Also, I'm surprised to see "the cast [is] all but forgotten" used as an argument to delete content from an encyclopedia. --Bensin (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm... I don't see filmographies in every article of a participating actor. Even filmography should have been enough, but should I do filmographies? --Gh87 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Looking at WP:Deletion policy and after looking closely at WP:DEL, I am troubled by the nominator's deletion rationales. Being a stub is a reason to tag an article yes, but not to delete it.  Not finding sources on the internet is also not a deletion rationale, as Wikipedia simply loves books that might be found in libraries.  Stating "the cast from the 1930s are all but forgotten" is also not a proper deletion rationale, as I might remind the nominator of WP:NTEMP, and the actors that had notability then, have that notability today.  As for the rationale "notability is absent", we do not look at a stub's present state but consider WP:POTENTIAL and look to see if even a 76-year-old B-movie has made it into the enduring historical record and whther the article can then be made to serve the project. That said, and other than a generous tagging for concerns, the stub that has pretty much sat forgoten since September of 2009.  While AfD is not meant to "force" cleanup, it has again had that effect. the unsourced unencyclopedic stub that was first nominated has now become a minor encyclopedic article that serves the project and informs its readers.  It would indeed be surprising if a B-movie from 1935 would have the same depth of coverage or critical commentary as a big budget studio blockbuster from 2011, but then we do not judge a 76-year-old movie using films such as Star Wars as the guideline. The article may never be bigger or better than I have made it... but so what?  It is here for the readers, and not the editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the book references are enough to indicate notability here. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (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.