Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet and Low (1914 film)


 * 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. Extra Sources were provided. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet and Low (1914 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFILM. Found no sources on Google books. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  23:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  00:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources cited in the article are adequate. Google isn't the be all and end all of finding sources. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is properly sourced already, I don't see what the problem with it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ^ Comment In fairness, I worked on it last night-that's when the sources, etc. arrived. We hope (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the excellent expansion work that has been done, and WP:BEFORE.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - All the sources cited were well-established film journals and trade papers (except Variety which is still functioning). The content in the article is quite well laid out. Most of the sources are from Internet Archive, which helps to store information that can't be found on Google in case. Websites like Open Library use it. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 10:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the superb work of We hope.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:GNG; I added a cite book, and there are more to be added. Would nom care to search again and perhaps withdraw the nomination? Sam Sailor 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the piece. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2018 (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.