Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex and the Single Mom

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. L Faraone 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Single Mom[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE. I nominated it for CSD, that was contested and the tag removed. I nominated it for PROD with "Reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE." as the rationale and the person that removed the CSD tag added {{Prod2}}. The article creator then removed the PROD and PROD2 tags. That is the history, the article is still exactly the same as when I marked it for CSD, it still reads as a theatre poster advertisement and it still does not pass notability requirements. Technical 13 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it may be better to argue toward sourcing or lack, rather than arguing for delete because of an editorial issue. Also, we RARELY have films speedied. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article shows the notability of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:NRVE, "notability" is dependent upon sources available through a diligent search and not that they actually be used to source an article. THAT issue and article tone are often addressable issues and not a reason to delete an article. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug>Well, I did try google to extent of my diligence for a subject I don't care. If someone rescued the article, good for it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Not a theatrical film, but a paint-by-numbers Lifetime TV movie. Could be sourced, but it's a ten year-old TV film these days used more for LMN (TV network) filler than remembered as a film that changed things. If not, I'd support deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. Yes, its an older made-for-tv film, but it has been reviewed. For instance, I was able to quickly find a 2011 review in Oklahoma Gazette [1] and earlier ones in DVD Verdict [2] The Futon Critic [3] and (weakest) Movie Web [4] We do not expect a made-for-TV film to have the coveraqe of a theatrical blockbuster. Wikipedia is not only about the most popular film projects ever. If such independent secondary coverage is not enough, we always have the ability to redirect this to either the director Don McBrearty or List of programs broadcast by Lifetime.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOVIE says that the film must be remembered 5 years after. The 'Oklahome Gazette' review is basically making fun about a dvd release marketed as "“the gift of a lifetime” for Mother’s Day". I wouldn't classify it as a serious film review. Whatever Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem:, WP:MOVIE is applied alongside WP:GNG; see the former guideline's lead section. To be straightforward, a film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both. MichaelQSchmidt is making the case that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. WP:MOVIE applies to instances like older films where coverage is not immediately apparent but what exists seems to indicate more coverage that cannot be found right away. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.