Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Millionaire for a Day

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Millionaire for a Day[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a short film has no sources besides IMDb (this has been a problem since 2019 at the least). Since, per WP:NFSOURCES, IMDb does not count as significant coverage, so WP:NFILM is not met. My WP:BEFORE check did not turn up anything, but a book published in 1914 (2 years after the film this article is on, and I did not find any relation) appears to be muddying up the results, so I may have missed something. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. I found details and a reference or two. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I've also found a real-life "millionaire for a day" on whom the story is ~~almost certainly~~ based (the same cities). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough coverage of this silent film and I will look for more. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE: the work itself is a reliable source and per others since added. Djflem (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most silent films are notable and so is this one with two newspaper reviews added to the article since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.