Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matters of Life and Dating

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. Keeping for now. Feel free to improve and discuss on talk page. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matters of Life and Dating[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)

Does not appear to pass WP:NFILM, a Lifetime network made-for-TV movie with little to no qualifying G-hits... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Found this review, [[1]]. Not sure the reliability of the site, but I have seen it used on many film articles on Wikipedia, and sometimes as a defense on AfD. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Movie Scene isn't enough all by itself: I've certainly seen people try to park film notability on worse sources than that, to be fair, but it isn't highly meganotable enough to get a film over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only source that's actually been offered. Even just a basic WP:GNG pass would require more. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Present coverage is not enough to qualify for GNG. Citterz (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded it quite a bit, so it would be good to revisit just to determine notability on its present state. @Bearcat, Citterz, Donaldd23, and Adolphus79: ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, expanding the article does not necessarily mean it now passes WP:NFILM... I still do not see anything that changes my mind about the notablility concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the footnotes you added, #2 and #3 aren't really doing anything to help (one that just briefly namechecks this film's existence in a piece that's primarily about a song, and the other is just a 38-word blurb) — and while #1 and #4 are better than that, they don't really add up to enough by themselves. I'd need to see at least one more fairly long piece that was as substantively about this film as 1 or 4 before I'd be convinced that I need to rethink my initial reaction. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is just about enough significant coverage in refs 1 and 4 and The Movie Scene article for a bare pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Atlantic306 that there is probably enough coverage to pass GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2021 (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.