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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oubliette[edit]

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

Non-notable, of course. Even a list is preferable to a line. Basket _Feudalist 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination fails WP:JNN, and (although the NYT link in the article does not provide nontrivial detail about the subject) there appears to be nontrivial book coverage e.g. here and here (unfortunately both paywalled), enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These old films might not have as much citations as new ones as they probably have been lost to time, but it stars a host of notables and there is some coverage existing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is part of a series of films called The Adventures of François Villon. I created The Adventures of François Villon to contain them. The Higher Law (1914 film) should be redirected there as well. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets notability standards for films on it own. The fact that it is a film featuring Lon Chaney doubles that. We have 100s of 1000s of articles that are only a line are two so that is not an automatic qualification for deletion. I am not sure that one article for four films is better than four separate articles. for one thing we will loose the edit histories. I also have a sense that expansion of the articles would be easier if they were separate but I can't back that up with any examples. If enough editors are for merging and redirecting then that would be okay instead. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per this 1914 silent film having separate historical notability under WP:NF no matter what film collections of which it might have later been a part. IE: "film features significant involvement (i.e., 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." If it somehow remains a stub, that is perfectly okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 12 October 2013 (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.