Deletion of Ilsa, the Wicked Warden

Comment: The coverage here isn't as heavy as the first Ilsa film, but it is there and it's enough to pass notability guidelines. Now the problem is that the sources did exist and were discovered fairly quickly. I understand that it's frustrating to have to add sourcing to articles that should've been properly sourced to begin with, but you should not put articles up for deletion without first searching and adding the sources to the article. AfD is not cleanup. And yes, it would be nice if another editor added them after asserting elsewhere that the sources exist, but that's still not in and of itself a reason for deletion. If you want sources to be added, find and add them yourself. Saying that you're too busy to do something is not an excuse, as it takes a considerably larger amount of work to create and argue an AfD than it would to ensure that you searched for sources and added any applicable ones to the article. I'm trying not to |bite here, but I consider it to be fairly inappropriate to just nominate articles for deletion when you haven't at least made a good faith attempt to find and add the sources yourself. If you did search and you feel that the sources aren't enough or aren't there then that's one thing, but to nominate it just because they aren't on the article and you're too busy to search and add them just isn't the proper way to create an AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)