Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Break, Break, Break (movie)
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
— [[User talk:Whitehorse1|Whitehorse1]], 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:GOOGLETEST||WP:V (Wikipedia:Notability)