Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border Vengeance
Looking at eletion policy and after looking closely at EL#REASON, I am troubled by the nominator's deletion rationales.  Being a stub is a reason to eletion policy#Tagging|tag an article yes, but not to delete it.  Not finding sources on the internet is also not a deletion rationale, as Wikipedia simply loves books that might be found in libraries.  Stating "the cast from the 1930s are all but forgotten" is also not a proper deletion rationale, as I might remind the nominator of , and the actors that had notability then, have that notability today.  As for the rationale "notability is absent", we do not look at a stub's present state but consider  and look to see if even a 76-year-old B-movie has made it into the enduring historical record and whther the article can then be made to serve the project. That said, and other than a generous tagging for concerns, the stub that has pretty much sat forgoten since September of 2009.  While AfD is not meant to "force" cleanup, it has again had that effect. the unsourced unencyclopedic stub that was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Border_Vengeance&action=historysubmit&diff=429918603&oldid=311697234 first nominated has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Vengeance now become a minor encyclopedic article that serves the project and informs its readers.  It would indeed be surprising if a B-movie from 1935 would have the same depth of coverage or critical commentary as a big budget studio blockbuster from 2011, but then we do not judge a 76-year-old movie using films such as Star Wars as the guideline. The article may never be bigger or better than I have made it... but so what?  It is here for the readers, and not the editors
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 08:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:D||WP:DEL||WP:D||WP:NTEMP||WP:POTENTIAL (Wikipedia:Disambiguation)