Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healing River


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Healing River

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No real indication of notability, most of these sources seem to be associated with the film or Christian publications likely to promote such a film: does not indicate wider notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. I began creating this page yesterday, and have not finished entering info and sources. My bad -- I did not realize I was working in "real time" and that the page had already been published. I plan to finish entering info and sources shortly. OgHollow (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Initial creation has been completed, with the exception of a still-needed Accolades (awards) section. Thank you for your patience! OgHollow (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup and left notes on the article talk page about the sourcing and reasons for removal of some of the sourcing and content. Offhand there are only two usable sources, one is a local article about the film's premiere and the other is a review. It's not really enough to justify a keep on my end, but I'm hoping to find more coverage when I search. There's mention of awards, but most film awards aren't considered to be major enough to give notability on Wikipedia, so I'll consider those not major unless I see coverage for them while I search. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, the magazine was more of an article than a review, but I did find a review from the Dove Foundation and added that. So two articles and one review. Both of the articles are local-ish coverage. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This only has three usable sources to establish notability. Two of these fall within the bounds of local coverage, one is a review. It would be a keep if I had one more good source, preferably a review, but there's just not anything out there beyond what I found. If someone can find another good source I'm open to changing my mind. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete regretfully. It seems this movie sank without a ripple. Not opposed to re-creation if it eventually attracts sufficient coverage for notability.--Jahaza (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2022 (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.