Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence of the Heart

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 per WP:SNOW, nomination has successfully been impeached. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silence of the Heart[edit]

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

Does not appear to be even remotely notable Da rkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a Google News Archive search, adding Chad Lowe's last name to the search to disambiguate the common wording of the film title. I immediately saw in-depth 1984 reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Milwaukee Sentinel. The reviews were favorable, though that shouldn't matter. Two years later in 1986, the Ocala Star Banner called it one of the best TV movies of 1984. Nine years later, in a profile of Chad Lowe published in the Los Angeles Times on May 16, 1993, his performance in this TV movie was still being praised. Many other reliable sources discuss the film. Many TV movies are not notable. However, this one is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I found a full page NYTimes review in about 2 minutes. HERE Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. At the time of nomination, an article from The New York Times was already IN the article as a source. And in using even minimal WP:BEFORE, it was easy to find in-depth coverage over several years[1] in such WP:RS as The Vindicator Kentucky New Era Free Lance-Star Gainesville Sun Sumter Daily Ocala Star-Banner St. Louis Post-Dispatch Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Philadelphia Inquirer Chicago Tribune New York Times Milwaukee Journal and many more, as well as write-ups in several books.[2] Easily found reviews in multiple reliable sources meets WP:NF, even if the nominator failed to find them in his looking and even if they are all not used to source the article. Deletion is never the answer for notable topics that may only use a minimum of the many sources so readily available. For THAT, we use regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:36, 3 August 2011 (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.