Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mermaid (2000 film)


 * 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mermaid (2000 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not meet WP:NFILM. No third party coverage or winner of any awards. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

*Delete as a copy violation shown here thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC) struck delete vote, see below Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Only the plot summary was a copyright violation, I've removed it.  Hut 8.5  21:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , now the article is a cast list. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's a once sentence stub with a cast list. The major question here is whether the subject meets the notability guidelines, if it does then the fact the article is short isn't an issue.  Hut 8.5  06:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging to take another look now that there are sources below and the copyvio reason has been resolved. matt91486 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is at least two major reviews here Variety and LA Times: . Given this, and other sources like BFI that have been added to article, enough for keep. matt91486 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: the LA Times is actually a New York Daily News reprint, but I think the sufficiency still stands. matt91486 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , erm those articles aren't added. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Refresh the page, I posted this before I posted the edits I was making. I didn't exactly expect someone to click in that 70 second period. .  Also...it shouldn't matter if they were added, as just the sources existing is sufficient.  But they have been all the same. matt91486 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment -- Apparently both Ferland and Burstyn received Emmy nominations for the film as well, adding to notability. See 28th Daytime Emmy Awards. . matt91486 (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , not a requirement for NFilm. "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a "requirement," but I said it likely adds to its notability. I think in a broad sense receiving Emmy nominations would make any TV movie more historically significant.  That doesn't strike me as a controversial statement. matt91486 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as it is no longer a copyvio and has reviews in reliable sources added to the article (not that they have to be, see WP:NEXIST) so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed and the Emmy Awards are obviously connected to the film, (acting counts as film making) regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (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.