Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Teacher Ate My Homework


 * 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 speedy keep‎ __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My Teacher Ate My Homework

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews from Reliable Sources found. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with the addition of 2 'reviews', but one is definitely a blog (wordpress site), and the other is of questionable reliability as it appears to be a blog style review as well. Donald D23  talk to me  10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America.  Donald D23   talk to me  10:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable cast (Shelley Duvall, particularly). At least one review. The film is the second and so far last attempt at adapting books from a notable book series. Seems reasonably notable in the field of children's horror cinema.— MY, OH, MY ! 12:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a notable cast is irrelevant as notabilty is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED. Films need more than 1 review from RELIABLE SOURCES to pass WP:NFILM guidelines. Blogs are not reliable sources.  Donald D23   talk to me  13:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a notable cast is not irrelevant. Quite the opposite, it is part of the film notability to have a notable cast, specially when members of the said cast are famous for their work in one given genre. It may not be enough, that's all, that is what the essay you are referring to explains. And, again, Morbidly Beautiful is not a blog. — MY, OH, MY ! 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The perhaps I shall direct you to WP:NRV, which is a guideline. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". None of which has been demonstrated yet. I do concur that "Morbidly Beautiful" appears to pass WP:RS however. But that alone is not enough. One more RS review and I will change my view. Donald D23   talk to me  17:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed an important guideline, and although I am not exactly certain as to why you would direct me to this page now, thank you all the same for this general reminder. Back to the point, if I may: there is a contemporary review in The Sun_Journal_(Lewiston,_Maine), 5 Oct. 1997, p. 56 defining the film as a "morality tale with an evil-doll-coming-to-life premise"; the film is also the object of a recommendation-rating notice by the Québec Board of education  (saying (in French) the film will be enjoyed by all children who will be scared just what is needed but with a warning not to show it too small children who might be too scared by the character of the Reaper); the film is also mentioned in various books about teachers in fiction, among others; finally, and I will leave it at that, the main actor, Gregory Smith received the 1997 Young Artist Award for Best Leading role Actor for his performance in the film (I could not verify if the UNICEF Award he received the same year was for the same role). —  MY, OH, MY ! 22:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the Sun Journal article, and combined with the Morbidly Beautiful article I do feel this passes WP:NFILM. Thank you for taking the time to find these sources that I was unable to. I withdraw my nomination...knowing that it still cannot be closed as another user has suggested a REDIRECT. Donald D23   talk to me  22:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — MY, OH, MY ! 22:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

*Redirect to Shadow Zone (novels), the book series that the movie was based on, in which the original book and this movie adaptation are both already mentioned (though, honestly, that article is also in terrible, unsourced shape, and probably needs to have its notability looked at, as well). Of the two added sources, one is a wordpress blog and is definitely not a reliable source. Even if the other one is a RS, which I am unsure of, a single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Searches for any additional sources are not turning up any significant coverage on either this film or the book it is based on that shares its name. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Striking my above recommendation, as the nominator indicated they would like to Withdraw. Rorshacma (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (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.