- 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. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Petals on the Wind (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A made-for-TV movie shown on the Lifetime channel which does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) Edison ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per production coverage by TheWrap here and here. Also authoritative reviews from The A.V. Club and Variety. Edison, my initial approach for checking a film's notability is to go to the IMDb page and to check the NewsDesk, External Sites, and External Reviews links. That's where I found these. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Meh. .TheWrap seems dubious as a reliable source. The AVClub is far from a reliable source. Maybe Variety reviews would qualify. Which of the following from the guideline cited apply?
"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4] The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." Edison ( talk) 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Edison: These are guidelines from WP:NF, which are alternatives to WP:GNG (which I am referencing here). Variety and The AV Club are Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Plus, production coverage is not limited to TheWrap (which I've seen as acceptable); there is similar coverage from Variety like here, here, and here. There is similar coverage under The Hollywood Reporter here, here, and here. Also found this from TV Guide. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The AV Club is considered to be a RS on here, especially for its reviews of films, books, and games. I've used it pretty often and I've seen them used to help save articles at AfD before. In any case, I found a review (of sorts) from Entertainment Weekly, which I put in the lead since I didn't quite know how to cite it given its layout, plus the Variety review and one from CSM. I'm still looking and I'll add more to the article as I find it, but there's enough overall to justify it passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Notability has been shown. The nomination statement makes it seem like being a Lifetime movie would be a deterrent to notability. In reality, I think being made for a major television network helps it get coverage. SL93 ( talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 24 March 2017 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 21:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Petals on the Wind (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A made-for-TV movie shown on the Lifetime channel which does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films) Edison ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per production coverage by TheWrap here and here. Also authoritative reviews from The A.V. Club and Variety. Edison, my initial approach for checking a film's notability is to go to the IMDb page and to check the NewsDesk, External Sites, and External Reviews links. That's where I found these. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Meh. .TheWrap seems dubious as a reliable source. The AVClub is far from a reliable source. Maybe Variety reviews would qualify. Which of the following from the guideline cited apply?
"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4] The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." Edison ( talk) 01:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- @ Edison: These are guidelines from WP:NF, which are alternatives to WP:GNG (which I am referencing here). Variety and The AV Club are Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. Plus, production coverage is not limited to TheWrap (which I've seen as acceptable); there is similar coverage from Variety like here, here, and here. There is similar coverage under The Hollywood Reporter here, here, and here. Also found this from TV Guide. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The AV Club is considered to be a RS on here, especially for its reviews of films, books, and games. I've used it pretty often and I've seen them used to help save articles at AfD before. In any case, I found a review (of sorts) from Entertainment Weekly, which I put in the lead since I didn't quite know how to cite it given its layout, plus the Variety review and one from CSM. I'm still looking and I'll add more to the article as I find it, but there's enough overall to justify it passing NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Notability has been shown. The nomination statement makes it seem like being a Lifetime movie would be a deterrent to notability. In reality, I think being made for a major television network helps it get coverage. SL93 ( talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFILM. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 24 March 2017 (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.