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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg (Movie)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, very short article. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No longer "very" short. As current state is more a reason to address concerns proactively, than it is to delete, I did some research and took a few minutes to take the nominated stub and expand it somewhat. Seemed pretty easy to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the expansion work done by Michael. Lugnuts (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst fairly unknown, seems to be above the line for notability. Move to Williamsburg (film) per WP:NCF though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2011 (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.