Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Details

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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Details[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)

Fails WP:NFILM due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as is necessary to pass WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. None of the WP:NFO "other evidence of notability" criteria apply in this instance either. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has three+ reliable sources as of now.★Trekker (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 1/2 star, "ho-hum" movie, with no links to actors. The plot synopsis is longer than it needs to be. Nothing to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a film has bad reviews does not concern notability neither does the size of the plot which is well within the 700 word maximum and the notabilty of the actors is Notability is not disinherited, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While on first glance the references currently in the article seem to establish notability, for instance the two "reviews", on closer inspection they do not seem to. Both "reviews" are extremely short, from likely dubious sources, and are mostly trivial coverage anyway. I don't know what else there to establish this movies notability outside of that. Two actually in-depth reviews that are from better places would probably do it. But until then, this is a clear delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common Sense Media was discussed at the WP:RSN and determined to be a reliable source for uncontroversial subjects such as film reviews, while the Dove Foundation is also a reliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 11 November 2020 (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.