Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lawful Cheater
per improper deletion rationale that fails eletion policy.  I am quite unhappy that this article was sent to AFD http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lawful_Cheater&action=historysubmit&diff=472915341&oldid=472915217 only '''60 seconds''' after being created.  Further, the deletion rationale is not supported by EL#REASON and appears to lack of consideration of EL#CONTENT / . Where there any improvement tags as suggested by ?  Did waiting a full 60 seconds allow any consideration toward the article author or ? No. While others above decided it might be fine to redirect the title elsewhere, I believe it far better for Wikipedia and its readers to actually give them sourced content and context about the film to increase their understanding of the topic. Being "lost" does not mean we ignore that |in 1925 this film |received coverage before and after it was released,http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Lawful+Cheater%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&prmdo=1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar%3A1&sa=X&ei=lQQfT5XLAqbM2AXTo62tDw&ved=0CBQQpwUoBQ nor that we ignore that it has made it into the enduring record... even ''if'' now ''considered'' a lost film. We do not expect nor demand that a film from the very beginnings of the modern film industry would have still have in-depth coverage 87 years later. Its enough for us that it has made it into the enduring record, and even while "lost" still receives analysis and comparison in later books. Here, we |protect cinema history... not redirect it to where pertinant and sourcable information becomes lost.  Will the article remian short?  Likely. But that's perfectly fine, and is itself no reason to redirect something which has independent and sourcable notability. Major kudos to
— User:Tokyogirl79, 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:D||WP:DEL||WP:DEL||WP:ATD||WP:ATD||WP:WIP||WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE (Wikipedia:Disambiguation)