Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Mom


 * 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 no consensus. due to lack of further participation; WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Invisible Mom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing. The Film Creator (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and a third review at TV Guide   Donald D23   talk to me  23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Counterpoint: All this really tells you is three people watched the movie. Three views is not fame! Minkai (no talk page yet!) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 3 CRITICs watched the film, which passes the review criteria established at WP:NFILM. Donald D23   talk to me  14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NF IMHO. Kolma8 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The actual criterion of WP:NFO regarding critics is "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" which it fails as this was a direct to cable/video movie. I would also argue that it doesn't meet NFO criterion #2: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" - articles suggests something far more in depth than just a review. None of the other NFO criteria apply. Plus NFO lists indicative criteria of likely notability, and does not override GNG. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you expand on how a film released "direct to cable/video" (which reaches millions of viewers) is different from a film released today "direct to streaming" (ie. Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime, etc.) which also reaches millions of viewers? Are you saying that those films are not notable either?  If so, Wikipedia is about to get purged of a lot of films!  Being released to the audience in ways other than theatrical release does NOT automatically make it non-notable.  Donald D23   talk to me  13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shouldn’t WP:NTV be the relevant SNG as it’s the only guideline that addresses cable tv programming? NFO is really more about movie theatre releases as opposed to films made for tv.4meter4 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like this was released direct to video. It aired frequently on TV afterwards, but it wasn't made for TV from what I can see. Now as far as the widely distributed part goes of NFILM, I need to note that the term is not defined on the page. As such, we can take widely distributed to mean anything from released to theaters to released to home video to even released directly to YouTube. Now what we should be looking at is whether or not the reviews for the film are from reliable sources. I can't access either one on RT, but the TV Guide one would be reliable. The review is also pretty in-depth, especially for a TV Guide review. Emanuel Levy is a RS, but the one that gives me pause is the Juicy Cerebellum one. The site is gone as far as I can tell, so we have to try and see if it's been used as a source by RS. It's referenced in this academic press book, as well as this one which is a good sign that it's probably usable. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I found two more reviews offline which were published years after the film's release. I also found a third reference source with an entry on the film (last of the three given below). These with the other critical reviews above pass WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * independent review
 * independent review
 * reference work entry with details on film

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:20, 28 September 2021 (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.