- 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. Tone 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ruthless Realtor (2020 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NF. Tow ( talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete
- Has multiple third-party reviews
- This film has multiple cited reviews from neutral third parties with no connection to the film itself, alongside its primary IMDb page and separate from any primary sources. Moreover, it cannot rightly be merged as there is no existing place to merge it to. While not as notable as, say, The Shining (1980 film) or other big hit blockbusters, this is one example of a TV movie page that is extremely similar to numerous others (see Wikipedia's "Category:Lifetime (TV network) films", many of which could pass for deletion if Ruthless Realtor goes along the same criteria). If there were no reviews and no buzz around the movie then it would make sense to delete the page, but there are at least 3 secondary source reviews from critics with no personal connection to the film itself. PetSematary182 ( talk) 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No viable third-party coverage, neither cast nor crew have articles, and the whopping two critical reviews are from non-notable sites. Lastly, IMDb is not a credible source. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is a risk. Deleting this article by the standards you've presented, despite it having two critical third-party reviews, puts a vast number of other articles on made-for-TV movies up for deletion as well, too many to even list here, which follow the same standards. This would take a huge chunk out of Wikipedia's articles on made-for-TV movies, most of which rarely receive more than a single critical review or two, and most of which use IMDb and their own theatrical credits as sources for cast/crew information. You could delete this one article, but this then suggests a rather troublesome precedent for numerous other articles. I've counted over 75 articles on made-for-TV movies on Wikipedia that have little to no critical reviews, no third-party sources and IMDb as a listed primary source. Somebody would have to go through, evaluate and delete them all, despite most of them being over 5 years old and presenting fully accurate information. I'm just saying, that's going to put up a whole collection of articles up for deletion, going by your views on what counts as a "notable" third-party critical review source.
PetSematary182 (
talk)
18:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182
- 'Comment I'm neutral on this AFD at the moment, but please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument on AFDs. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All refs provided are unreliable to pass GNG, including contributor blogs. Thanks for the creator's work on the articles, but as they do not meet GNG (I could only find zero RT reviews and no reliable mentions for this film, or any specific film standards (the film also did not win a major award, was taught at a major university, or was released after five years), I think this should be deleted.
- 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. Tone 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ruthless Realtor (2020 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NF. Tow ( talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete
- Has multiple third-party reviews
- This film has multiple cited reviews from neutral third parties with no connection to the film itself, alongside its primary IMDb page and separate from any primary sources. Moreover, it cannot rightly be merged as there is no existing place to merge it to. While not as notable as, say, The Shining (1980 film) or other big hit blockbusters, this is one example of a TV movie page that is extremely similar to numerous others (see Wikipedia's "Category:Lifetime (TV network) films", many of which could pass for deletion if Ruthless Realtor goes along the same criteria). If there were no reviews and no buzz around the movie then it would make sense to delete the page, but there are at least 3 secondary source reviews from critics with no personal connection to the film itself. PetSematary182 ( talk) 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No viable third-party coverage, neither cast nor crew have articles, and the whopping two critical reviews are from non-notable sites. Lastly, IMDb is not a credible source. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is a risk. Deleting this article by the standards you've presented, despite it having two critical third-party reviews, puts a vast number of other articles on made-for-TV movies up for deletion as well, too many to even list here, which follow the same standards. This would take a huge chunk out of Wikipedia's articles on made-for-TV movies, most of which rarely receive more than a single critical review or two, and most of which use IMDb and their own theatrical credits as sources for cast/crew information. You could delete this one article, but this then suggests a rather troublesome precedent for numerous other articles. I've counted over 75 articles on made-for-TV movies on Wikipedia that have little to no critical reviews, no third-party sources and IMDb as a listed primary source. Somebody would have to go through, evaluate and delete them all, despite most of them being over 5 years old and presenting fully accurate information. I'm just saying, that's going to put up a whole collection of articles up for deletion, going by your views on what counts as a "notable" third-party critical review source.
PetSematary182 (
talk)
18:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182
- 'Comment I'm neutral on this AFD at the moment, but please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument on AFDs. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All refs provided are unreliable to pass GNG, including contributor blogs. Thanks for the creator's work on the articles, but as they do not meet GNG (I could only find zero RT reviews and no reliable mentions for this film, or any specific film standards (the film also did not win a major award, was taught at a major university, or was released after five years), I think this should be deleted.
- 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.