Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Next Door

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 . Nomination withdrawn due to the indentification of 2 RS reviews. No delete votes were presented. (non-admin closure) DonaldD23 talk to me 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Next Door[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)

While this film attracted a large viewing audience, I am not finding any reliable source reviews for it. Everything is either routine coverage or blog reviews. Should be deleted as non-notable, or a redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies.

Was previously PROD'd. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is currently on the page seems enough. There is at least ~~also~~ this in Romper.— MY, OH, MY! 12:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a one-click search also gives this, and this...— MY, OH, MY! 14:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Scene may be considered reliable, but the other one is clearly a blog, which fails WP:RS as it is WP:USERGENERATED. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But Romper, see 1st line of my comment, is not a blog, Is it? — MY, OH, MY! 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC) (actually it was already on the page, I had missed it. But large audience + at least 2 sources seem to be enough)[reply]

I concur that Romper is a RS. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was already kept once [1]. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removing a PROD with the rationale that it "may be notable" is not a valid keep reason. Sources proving notability must be provided, not an opinion that it is notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not what WP:NEXIST says. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that sources MAY exist, but nothing has be provided. We don't keep based on MAYBE. Sources don't need to be added, but they need to exist. Nothing has been added except blog reviews, and just saying "keep" based on those blog reviews will not suffice. Sources must be RELIABLE, meaning oversight. There is zero oversight on a personal blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article do seem sufficient, and those presented above seal the deal. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in the article are blogs. Out of the 2 listed by Kirill, only the Movie Scene can be considered reliable.The other one...yep, another blog. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I am convinced with there being at least 2 RS reviews that this film passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 1 May 2023 (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.