Deletion of Break, Break, Break (movie)

Comment: Normally, when a film is "non notable" it is new and/or insignificant, where sufficient reliable sources do not yet exist and/or may never exist.  In this case, there seems to be a good-faith assertion that it is so ''old'' that sourcing simply isn't available anymore.  While acknowledging the principle of notability, I would be far more willing to give a film in this predicament the benefit of the doubt than a more modern work.  Having said that, if all we have is enough to meet , what can we really say about it that will be instructive to our readers? Thus, I officially have no opinion, leaning towards keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: and discuss merge to the article on the filmmaker, screenwriter, or one of the principles. Note: GNG is not policy and does not trump other notability guidelines. In cases of historic films, guideline grants and even points to exceptions to INHERITED... Per  "''The film features significant involvement (ie. 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.''"  This film from the early history of cinema is the poster boy for such common sense considerations.  Verifying their particpation through reliable sources is what's required, not deletion because a 1914 silent film does not have the ineternet or media coverage of a current majorly hyped studio blockbuster.  Why the |hurry to toss this out?  Why no discussion about a perhaps suitable merge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: Initial impression was of an older film, which suggested coverage, while available, might be more scarce. As someone who's studied film, I appreciate the importance of preservation of early cinema. We need, however, to consider the article on its own merits.This fails to meet  (and OTFILM for that matter). Recognizing the |online search bias toward modern subjects, I understand sources for historical topics may be offline or limited to specialized databases. As well as searching for evidence of study in gscholar, my search included academic databases on humanities and film resources. No sources—in fact no indication sufficient material for an encyclopedic article actually exists—turned up.Examining the article history as a starting point shows its origin is a series of rapid sub-stub creations, often of the form "X is a Y that Z". The article creator's contrib http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20061017102546&limit=2500&contribs=user&target=Dr.+Blofeld history (warning: long page) in that month shows their cookie cutter nature. Here, some random examples: Her Gallant Knights|a, On Dangerous Ground (1915 film)|b, The House in the Tree|c, The Lady Killer|d, The Shoemaker and the Doll|e, The Thoroughbred|f, The Voice of Conscience|g, The Heart of a Fool|h, The Highest Bid|i, The Higher Law (1911 film)|j. All, remain the same as they were 3&nbsp;years ago. No evidence of unrealized ''potential'', for expansion, is apparent.This is a short film. We don't know ''how short'', because the article was never created with that detail; we don't know what it is ''about'', because the article was not created with any detail. We can only assume that it exists or at one point existed, though no reliable sources were or were subsequently presented to erify that.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GOOGLETEST||WP:V)

Comment: notability is not inherited, so I don't give a fig who was in it. Fails , so shouldn't be included
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)