Deletion of Camilla (film)

Comment: Here's an excellent reason for this article to remain: the film is notable, as Arxiloxos has so ably shown.  As for nominator's statement that the article "doesn't have any information in it", that is incorrect.  The article makes a strong claim of notability about the film; namely that it was the last film role by one of the 20th century's greatest actors of stage and screen, Jessica Tandy.  The article lists ten members of the cast and crew, includes an image of the poster for the film, includes the release date and links to other films by the same director.  Admittedly, the article is a |stub, but we don't delete stubs on notable topics.  Instead, we expand them and improve them through the normal editing process.  I think the nominator would be an excellent person to take on that volunteer task, but failing that, other volunteer editors will do so, I am sure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB)

Comment: per poor deletion rationale that refects a |possible misunderstanding of diting policy|editing policy and eletion policy|deletion policy toward a |demonstrably |notable topic. So it was a stub when nominated?  Not a big deal and deletion is NOT the preferred option for an improvable stub. What BUILDS an encyclopedia is editors working collaboratively to improve stubs, not tossing them because they might |meed work, specially with the nominator's admission that he is someone "who doesn't know anything about the topic". Tough to set oneself up to judge a topic's potential if you do not know the topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:E||WP:D||WP:BEFORE||WP:NRVE||WP:NOEFFORT)