The Hired Heart – There being no consensus to overturn the AFD outcome, it will be undisturbed. For the avoidance of doubt, the article title is not protected and there is no bar on anyone recreating the article (either directly or via AFC) if they can overcome the reasons for deletion.
Stifle (
talk)
09:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment - The appellant is saying that the film is notable. The article was deleted because the closer found that the article did not establish that the film is notable. In this Deletion Review, we are only considering the article on the film, and the close of the AFD on the article on the film, not the film itself.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Nothing about this AFD was done right. Malformed, not listed properly to begin with. Neither commenter there performed a minimally sufficient BEFORE search. If you just click on the Google link in the DRV, it's easy to find, on page 2 of the results, a review of the (TV) movie nationally syndicated by the New York Times. If you're going to limit your review of search results to page 1, you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away. If you're going to look for coverage of 25-year-old TV films, newspapers.com is a good resource -- but if you dpn't realize that you will need to sift out a large number of plain tv program listings to find the reviews, you, again, don't understand the process. I've encountered deletionist advocates who insist that when there are too many potential sources to check, [[WP;BEFORE] should be disregarded, but sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk)
18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Restore given that only one person supported deleting the article other than the nominator it's reasonable to treat it as a
soft deletion which can be overturned on request. However to have an article here a film needs to pass the
notability guidelines, specifically
WP:NFILM, and if there is no significant coverage in reliable sources then an article on a film is likely to be deleted. I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is referring to
this column about what was on TV one day in 1997, which isn't exactly much to base an article on. The deleted version was extremely short and had little content beyond an infobox. Hut 8.518:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Deleting admin comment. OP filed this DRV and then
inquired about the deletion without a DRV notice, so I wasn't aware of the former until Extraordinary Writ notified me. I would be more sympathetic if they made an attempt to link to at least one film review, but the basis of their notability argument is that it can streamed on Amazon Prime and received user-generated ratings on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.
✗plicit03:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - A draft of a better article should include a plot summary, a Reception section, and references. References are not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The Hired Heart – There being no consensus to overturn the AFD outcome, it will be undisturbed. For the avoidance of doubt, the article title is not protected and there is no bar on anyone recreating the article (either directly or via AFC) if they can overcome the reasons for deletion.
Stifle (
talk)
09:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comment - The appellant is saying that the film is notable. The article was deleted because the closer found that the article did not establish that the film is notable. In this Deletion Review, we are only considering the article on the film, and the close of the AFD on the article on the film, not the film itself.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Overturn. Nothing about this AFD was done right. Malformed, not listed properly to begin with. Neither commenter there performed a minimally sufficient BEFORE search. If you just click on the Google link in the DRV, it's easy to find, on page 2 of the results, a review of the (TV) movie nationally syndicated by the New York Times. If you're going to limit your review of search results to page 1, you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away. If you're going to look for coverage of 25-year-old TV films, newspapers.com is a good resource -- but if you dpn't realize that you will need to sift out a large number of plain tv program listings to find the reviews, you, again, don't understand the process. I've encountered deletionist advocates who insist that when there are too many potential sources to check, [[WP;BEFORE] should be disregarded, but sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk)
18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Restore given that only one person supported deleting the article other than the nominator it's reasonable to treat it as a
soft deletion which can be overturned on request. However to have an article here a film needs to pass the
notability guidelines, specifically
WP:NFILM, and if there is no significant coverage in reliable sources then an article on a film is likely to be deleted. I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is referring to
this column about what was on TV one day in 1997, which isn't exactly much to base an article on. The deleted version was extremely short and had little content beyond an infobox. Hut 8.518:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Deleting admin comment. OP filed this DRV and then
inquired about the deletion without a DRV notice, so I wasn't aware of the former until Extraordinary Writ notified me. I would be more sympathetic if they made an attempt to link to at least one film review, but the basis of their notability argument is that it can streamed on Amazon Prime and received user-generated ratings on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.
✗plicit03:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - A draft of a better article should include a plot summary, a Reception section, and references. References are not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)reply