Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Engagement 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 meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pittsburgh City Paper [[1]] and Common Sense Media [[2]] Donaldd23 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the two reliable sources reviews linked above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage appears to be routine per the Hallmark Channel's other made-for-TV films. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, 2 reliable reviews (which is what WP:NFILM requires) is "routine" coverage? Common Sense Media is a Wikipedia reliable source for films Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the other is an independent, third party newspaper review. Both taken together is enough for this film to pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage out there is distinctly routine for a film of this type ~~(particularly the Common Sense Media article, which is less a 'review' in the critical sense and more guidance for parents on whether a movie is appropriate for children)~~, and I highly doubt therefore that it meets our notability guidelines. There is also the issue of whether we can write a decent article based on all the sources available, which again I am sceptical of. firefly ( t · c ) 06:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly, there seems to be a lot of editors commenting lately that Common Sense Media is not reliable as a review source, this is incorrect. Please review reliable sources for Wikipedia film articles at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Common Sense Media has been discussed several times and to quote the page, "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Therefore, your assessment that it is "less a 'review' in the critical sense and more guidance for parents" is also incorrect. It counts as a reliable source review. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, if there is consensus that Common Sense Media is a reliable source I'll strike that portion. I don't think that changes my core view though - that the sourcing is still insufficient to show notability. firefly ( t · c ) 14:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in my opinion two reviews are enough to pass NFILM and GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, and I argue it also fails NFILM. NFILM says: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." I do not see the Common Sense Media 'review' as being a 'full length review' - it's a few short paragraphs with a little analysis. The Pittsburgh City Paper is a full review, but Ryan Deto is a staff writer (not exactly Ebert) in an 'alternative' Pittsburgh newspaper, according to Media in Pittsburgh. In any case, even assuming both qualify, it's the very bare minimum. I am not convinced that notability has been established and for that reason I'm out. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability criteria and doesn't satisfy any of the film-specific criteria at WP:NFO. The two reviewers brought to attention above are not "national known" critics. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Betty Logan to reiterate what I mentioned above, Common Sense Media is a Wikipedia reliable source for films Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. To say it is not a "national known critic" is mistaken. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that it's a reliable source but the primary function of Common Sense Media is to evaluate the suitability of content. It is not nationally known for its film criticism. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of notability on Wikipedia, it is "nationally known" as it is accepted as a reliable source, so it cannot be discounted when considering the article for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 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.