- 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 delete. "Keep" arguments don't stand up to analysis. For example, "Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together " amounts to something like " I haven't found any sources that establish notability, but there's a load of stuff around, so I guess there may be something suitable amongst it somewhere". This is a version of WP:MUST. Also, thinking that the mere existence of two reviews automatically guarantees notability via WP:NFILM indicates a very superficial and inaccurate reading of that guideline. After discounting arguments such as those, we are left with a consensus to delete. JBW ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Love Begins
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Love Begins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Found a review at Dove.org [
[1]]. That's halfway to passing
WP:NFILM
Donaldd23 (
talk)
12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, I already added that one. But that is all I could find. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (for now) fails NFILM. I did some searching myself but only found unreliable sources such as blog post reviews and entries on databases. Anonymous 7481 ( talk) 21:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as well as the Dove review, found a review at The Phantom Tollbooth here which is a listed reliable source for christian music, so that should cover films as well, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the addition of new sources, further evaluation of these in the context of the notability guideline for films and the General Notability Guideline would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given the addition of new sources, further evaluation of these in the context of the notability guideline for films and the General Notability Guideline would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Hallmark Channel at best. Every stupid generic Christian film gets a glowing Dove review. While Dove and the Phantoom Tollbooth may be reliable, those are the only two sources that have been found here, and you can't really make a full article out of them. I couldn't find anything else besides those. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 22:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, just because they are the only 2 sources, does not mean that they don't count toward the 2 review requirement of WP:NFILM. They are both considered reliable sources per guidelines and personal opinion of those sources does not outweigh wikipedia consensus on their reliability. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or
redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Moviesfails WP:NFILM per the nom. Pahiy ( talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, how do 2 reviews from Wikipedia reliable sources not meet WP:NFILM requirements? Two reviews are all that is required, which this meets. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, 2 reviews (Dove & Phantom Tollbooth) are all that is required to pass
WP:NFILM
Donaldd23 (
talk)
14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment per
WP:NFO where the two review guideline comes from "However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film."
BOVINEBOY
2008
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Yet another case of where Wikipedia guidelines contradict one another!! When this happens I feel that editors must make a decision and be consistent with their choices. Let's say an editor lobbies for a film to be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews, then (In my humble opinion) they shouldn't argue for deletion when there are 2 reviews. Instead they should pick another reason for deletion as it is contradictory to say "Film #1 should be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews and therefore fails WP:NFILM", but then also say, "Film #2 should be deleted EVEN THOUGH it has 2 reviews, because WP:NFO says that". I'm not saying your rationale is wrong, just pointing out the contradictions that Wikipedia has. Thanks for suffering through my Ted talk! :)
Donaldd23 (
talk)
20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely hear you. However, I don't read this as a contradiction. The idea that a film "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is an indication that "a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful". Despite this having two reviews, the follow-up has not come to fruition. It is still lacking significant coverage as far as I could find. The discussion should end at here are exactly two reviews so the subject is notable. The topic still should meet WP:GNG, which is what WP:NF is spelling out for films specifically. BOVINEBOY 2008 23:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Yet another case of where Wikipedia guidelines contradict one another!! When this happens I feel that editors must make a decision and be consistent with their choices. Let's say an editor lobbies for a film to be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews, then (In my humble opinion) they shouldn't argue for deletion when there are 2 reviews. Instead they should pick another reason for deletion as it is contradictory to say "Film #1 should be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews and therefore fails WP:NFILM", but then also say, "Film #2 should be deleted EVEN THOUGH it has 2 reviews, because WP:NFO says that". I'm not saying your rationale is wrong, just pointing out the contradictions that Wikipedia has. Thanks for suffering through my Ted talk! :)
Donaldd23 (
talk)
20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment per
WP:NFO where the two review guideline comes from "However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film."
BOVINEBOY
2008
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per research above. Additionally, I found the following sources:
- Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/love-begins/
- Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/love_begins/
- Mommy Bear Media: https://mommybearmedia.com/correct-order-love-softly-series/
- Radio Times: https://www.radiotimes.com/film/qfvr6/love-begins-2011/
Times Community Media: https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/870751/love-begins/- Up Faith and Family: https://my.upfaithandfamily.com/love-begins/
- Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together a somewhat comprehensive article.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Letterboxd, Radio Times and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable as they are comprehensive film databases. Also www.tcm.com is the domain for
Turner Classic Movies (also a database), not Times Community Media..? Up Faith and Family looks rather questionable, but Mommy Bear Media looks usable imo.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Anonymous 7481: Radio Times is unreliable? That's the first I've heard of it. Is it just for the database information or everything else as well? As for the others, I didn't read them all thoroughly but I had thought they were all okay. I agree that the MBM source is the best one there.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I reckon it is reliable (as is Rotten Tomatoes, though it has been known to hold certain inaccuracies), what I meant was that ideally Wikipedia articles should not cite comprehensive databases and instead use them as external links (I should have worded it better). Reviews and other means of coverage are much more ideal. Also, an entry on the Radio Times does not establish notability or signify significant coverage due to it being a comprehensive database, which this article still lacks at the moment.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
03:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay, now I understand what you meant! Thank you for clarifying. Sean Stephens ( talk) 03:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I reckon it is reliable (as is Rotten Tomatoes, though it has been known to hold certain inaccuracies), what I meant was that ideally Wikipedia articles should not cite comprehensive databases and instead use them as external links (I should have worded it better). Reviews and other means of coverage are much more ideal. Also, an entry on the Radio Times does not establish notability or signify significant coverage due to it being a comprehensive database, which this article still lacks at the moment.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
03:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Anonymous 7481: Radio Times is unreliable? That's the first I've heard of it. Is it just for the database information or everything else as well? As for the others, I didn't read them all thoroughly but I had thought they were all okay. I agree that the MBM source is the best one there.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Letterboxd, Radio Times and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable as they are comprehensive film databases. Also www.tcm.com is the domain for
Turner Classic Movies (also a database), not Times Community Media..? Up Faith and Family looks rather questionable, but Mommy Bear Media looks usable imo.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Mommy Bear Media is a
self-proclaimed blog. We should not use blogs as an indication of notability nor a reliable source.
BOVINEBOY
2008
11:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you. Anonymous 7481 ( talk) 16:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several new sources have been found since the initial listing. Relisting to evaluate per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Several new sources have been found since the initial listing. Relisting to evaluate per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist per Qwaiiplayer immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Bold third relist per Qwaiiplayer immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. "Keep" arguments don't stand up to analysis. For example, "Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together " amounts to something like " I haven't found any sources that establish notability, but there's a load of stuff around, so I guess there may be something suitable amongst it somewhere". This is a version of WP:MUST. Also, thinking that the mere existence of two reviews automatically guarantees notability via WP:NFILM indicates a very superficial and inaccurate reading of that guideline. After discounting arguments such as those, we are left with a consensus to delete. JBW ( talk) 20:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Love Begins
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Love Begins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 12:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Found a review at Dove.org [
[1]]. That's halfway to passing
WP:NFILM
Donaldd23 (
talk)
12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, I already added that one. But that is all I could find. BOVINEBOY 2008 12:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete (for now) fails NFILM. I did some searching myself but only found unreliable sources such as blog post reviews and entries on databases. Anonymous 7481 ( talk) 21:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as well as the Dove review, found a review at The Phantom Tollbooth here which is a listed reliable source for christian music, so that should cover films as well, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the addition of new sources, further evaluation of these in the context of the notability guideline for films and the General Notability Guideline would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given the addition of new sources, further evaluation of these in the context of the notability guideline for films and the General Notability Guideline would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost ( talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect to Hallmark Channel at best. Every stupid generic Christian film gets a glowing Dove review. While Dove and the Phantoom Tollbooth may be reliable, those are the only two sources that have been found here, and you can't really make a full article out of them. I couldn't find anything else besides those. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 22:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, just because they are the only 2 sources, does not mean that they don't count toward the 2 review requirement of WP:NFILM. They are both considered reliable sources per guidelines and personal opinion of those sources does not outweigh wikipedia consensus on their reliability. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or
redirect to List of Hallmark Channel Original Moviesfails WP:NFILM per the nom. Pahiy ( talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, how do 2 reviews from Wikipedia reliable sources not meet WP:NFILM requirements? Two reviews are all that is required, which this meets. Donaldd23 ( talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, 2 reviews (Dove & Phantom Tollbooth) are all that is required to pass
WP:NFILM
Donaldd23 (
talk)
14:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment per
WP:NFO where the two review guideline comes from "However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film."
BOVINEBOY
2008
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Yet another case of where Wikipedia guidelines contradict one another!! When this happens I feel that editors must make a decision and be consistent with their choices. Let's say an editor lobbies for a film to be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews, then (In my humble opinion) they shouldn't argue for deletion when there are 2 reviews. Instead they should pick another reason for deletion as it is contradictory to say "Film #1 should be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews and therefore fails WP:NFILM", but then also say, "Film #2 should be deleted EVEN THOUGH it has 2 reviews, because WP:NFO says that". I'm not saying your rationale is wrong, just pointing out the contradictions that Wikipedia has. Thanks for suffering through my Ted talk! :)
Donaldd23 (
talk)
20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I definitely hear you. However, I don't read this as a contradiction. The idea that a film "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is an indication that "a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful". Despite this having two reviews, the follow-up has not come to fruition. It is still lacking significant coverage as far as I could find. The discussion should end at here are exactly two reviews so the subject is notable. The topic still should meet WP:GNG, which is what WP:NF is spelling out for films specifically. BOVINEBOY 2008 23:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Yet another case of where Wikipedia guidelines contradict one another!! When this happens I feel that editors must make a decision and be consistent with their choices. Let's say an editor lobbies for a film to be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews, then (In my humble opinion) they shouldn't argue for deletion when there are 2 reviews. Instead they should pick another reason for deletion as it is contradictory to say "Film #1 should be deleted because it doesn't have 2 reviews and therefore fails WP:NFILM", but then also say, "Film #2 should be deleted EVEN THOUGH it has 2 reviews, because WP:NFO says that". I'm not saying your rationale is wrong, just pointing out the contradictions that Wikipedia has. Thanks for suffering through my Ted talk! :)
Donaldd23 (
talk)
20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment per
WP:NFO where the two review guideline comes from "However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film."
BOVINEBOY
2008
19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per research above. Additionally, I found the following sources:
- Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/film/love-begins/
- Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/love_begins/
- Mommy Bear Media: https://mommybearmedia.com/correct-order-love-softly-series/
- Radio Times: https://www.radiotimes.com/film/qfvr6/love-begins-2011/
Times Community Media: https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/870751/love-begins/- Up Faith and Family: https://my.upfaithandfamily.com/love-begins/
- Admittedly not all of them may be useful, but between these sources and the two above, there should be enough to pull together a somewhat comprehensive article.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Letterboxd, Radio Times and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable as they are comprehensive film databases. Also www.tcm.com is the domain for
Turner Classic Movies (also a database), not Times Community Media..? Up Faith and Family looks rather questionable, but Mommy Bear Media looks usable imo.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Anonymous 7481: Radio Times is unreliable? That's the first I've heard of it. Is it just for the database information or everything else as well? As for the others, I didn't read them all thoroughly but I had thought they were all okay. I agree that the MBM source is the best one there.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I reckon it is reliable (as is Rotten Tomatoes, though it has been known to hold certain inaccuracies), what I meant was that ideally Wikipedia articles should not cite comprehensive databases and instead use them as external links (I should have worded it better). Reviews and other means of coverage are much more ideal. Also, an entry on the Radio Times does not establish notability or signify significant coverage due to it being a comprehensive database, which this article still lacks at the moment.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
03:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay, now I understand what you meant! Thank you for clarifying. Sean Stephens ( talk) 03:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I reckon it is reliable (as is Rotten Tomatoes, though it has been known to hold certain inaccuracies), what I meant was that ideally Wikipedia articles should not cite comprehensive databases and instead use them as external links (I should have worded it better). Reviews and other means of coverage are much more ideal. Also, an entry on the Radio Times does not establish notability or signify significant coverage due to it being a comprehensive database, which this article still lacks at the moment.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
03:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Anonymous 7481: Radio Times is unreliable? That's the first I've heard of it. Is it just for the database information or everything else as well? As for the others, I didn't read them all thoroughly but I had thought they were all okay. I agree that the MBM source is the best one there.
Sean Stephens (
talk)
03:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Letterboxd, Radio Times and Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable as they are comprehensive film databases. Also www.tcm.com is the domain for
Turner Classic Movies (also a database), not Times Community Media..? Up Faith and Family looks rather questionable, but Mommy Bear Media looks usable imo.
Anonymous 7481 (
talk)
02:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Mommy Bear Media is a
self-proclaimed blog. We should not use blogs as an indication of notability nor a reliable source.
BOVINEBOY
2008
11:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you. Anonymous 7481 ( talk) 16:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several new sources have been found since the initial listing. Relisting to evaluate per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Several new sources have been found since the initial listing. Relisting to evaluate per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist per Qwaiiplayer immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Bold third relist per Qwaiiplayer immediately above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 02:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.