Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desperately Seeking Santa

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)} 15:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Seeking Santa[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)

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, seems to only be listed on databases and on commercial sites for sale, does not meet WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 00:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not really much else I can say. AdoTang (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews at Common Sense Media [[1]] and CineMagazine [[2]] Donaldd23 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Donald's review links. matt91486 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sources are insufficient to show notability for a TV movie, especially when one is more of a parents' guide to content than a real review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two sources are all that is needed per WP:NFILM, which doesn't have different rules for TV films. Also, the parent's guide (Common Sense Media) is listed as a Wikipedia Reliable Source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and their content is acceptable as a review. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better reviews exist, including this one which I accessed through my university in the Los Angeles Times: MARY McNAMARA (November 26, 2011). TELEVISION REVIEWS; Stories of faith and a mall. p. D19. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) That took me two minutes to find. It’s an ABC program that aired nationally. There will be other major newspapers with reviews of program from a major network.4meter4 (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. There is also a review in The New York Times: Shattuck, Kathryn (November 27, 2011). "What's On Sunday". The New York Times. p. MB.11., and the book is mentioned five times in this scholarly book on Christmas films [3]. 4meter4 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 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.