Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red Sneakers

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. with newly located sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Sneakers[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)

No SIGCOV. Two sources, one of which is IMDB. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received 4 notable awards. (see this); and this)

And review in the NYT

(Also this, fwiw) Film internationally distributed (in French, for example as La Légende de Reggie Reynolds)

I am willing to add those sources to the page when/if it is kept.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are significant coverage. The first is a photo caption, the second is a list of films, I can't open the NYT and the fourth is from a non-reliable-source website. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

....you can’t open the NYT... well, that’s too bad, really....it’s significant enough. And so are the awards, for which the first sources are presented. Just look them up. As for the last source, I don’t know the site but insisted l mentioned it for what it was worth (Please try and read my comment more carefully when you reply, thanks.) This film is clearly notable. Maybe this, this, this brief mention based on a interview, in the Chicago Tribune and this review in The Christian Science Monitor and this one in the Sun Sentinel will help. No further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll give you the NYT, I'm able to sort of see the headline in the NYT link above. With the other (Christian Science and the Florida paper), should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: I can only find coverage about red shoes in general, nothing about this television item. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the sources given, reviews help for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the New York Times, Sun Sentinel, Dove Foundation and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFILM due to the awards and also multiple reliable sources.Hkkingg (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much better than it was, but I question a couple of the sources, particularly in the Awards section. One award is sourced from a photo caption in Jet magazine and another from a book published by Lulu.com, which is a vanity press. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:20, 1 October 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.