Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trilby (1912 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Trilby (1912 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Cronals (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Do you plan to offer a rationale for deletion? There seem to be plenty of sources. Central and Adams (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Austria.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No reason presented for deletion, not even a word. And a brief look at the page even in its current state would give plenty of reasons to keep anyway......- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  08:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, plenty of sources...no reason for deletion given. Donald D23   talk to me  12:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep To me even the four books that are now referenced on the page are enough to show notability. Shaws username  .  talk  . 13:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination with no explanation. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment nominator put their explanation on the AfD talk page Shaws username  .  talk  . 15:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @StreetcarEnjoyer @Donaldd23 @Mushy Yank @Central and Adams Shaws username  .  talk  . 15:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The explanation they put is: "Very small article .No importence".
 * Size of an article is not a reason for deletion. If an article is a notable subject it could be just one line as long as the citations support notability. The "no importance" part sounds like personal opinion...which also is irrelevant. As stated by myself and others, there is sufficient citations to support notability (importance). Donald D23   talk to me  16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- No policy based deletion rationale given. Sources already in article more than sufficient to meet GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep,some editor developed the article.any one can close discussion.

Nomination withdrawn.Any one can close discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (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.