Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunting Sarah


 * 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The result was Withdrawn and special kudos to Schmidt for the excellent work in rescuing the article. Non-admin closure- -- Cycl o pia talk  11:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Haunting Sarah

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

I've been watching this article, and debating with myself about the films notability, for the last two months... I originally prodded it, but the prod was removed by another editor, stating "plenty of notable actors"... cool... but I've since been watching it and thinking that while it does involve a few (technically notable) actors, it's still just a Hallmark Channel made for TV movie, with no signs of any awards, or mentions outside of the Hallmark website... I have finally decided that other than a couple of two-bit actors (no offense to said actors), this movie comes nowhere close to passing WP:NF, and also fails WP:RS... Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: What part of WP:NOTFILM does this meet? Zero.    RGTraynor  10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There are some gnews hits which lead me to think that could possibly pass WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It fails WP:NOTFILM. In the news search above, I looked at about half of the hits and they were all excluded as sources of notability under WP:NOTFILM.  Mostly one-liners and short reviews.  Shorter than most capsule reviews.  I could find no significant coverage.Dethlock99 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATD and source per available reviews. That no one has improved the article is not a valid reason to delete.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has said to delete the article due to lack of activity... the question is whether it passes WP:NOTFILM or not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In appreciating how you yourelf went through the article to do some cleanup in October, my thought was toward the fact that no one had bothered to expand or source the article since then. Had anyone done so, we might not be here today. However.... I am now on it and will report back. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN BY NOM - Due to the recent work of User:MichaelQSchmidt, it now appears that this article passes notability concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2009 (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.