Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Who?


 * 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The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Santa Who?

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite my love for lead actor Leslie Nielson, this film fails WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites. Perhaps it was one of his lesser known roles? And the fact that it was part of 25 Days of Christmas on ABC Family, without a proper source, doesn't make it notable.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep 2 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and a 3 star rating at Allmovie (a WP:RS)   Donald D23   talk to me  22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? 3 star rating is from 1 reliable source. We need more then one for an article to be included.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And in order for Rotten Tomatoes to be considered a WP:RS we should have "Top Critic" reviews, not just 2 lousy critics who just give stars and nothing else.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So Ok, I added AllMovies, because as you said it's WP:RS. It still falls bellow our inclusion level. We need at least 3 reliable sources.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the reviews are no longer available doesn't make them less viable. They are CRITIC reviews, NOT audience reviews at Rotten Tomatoes. If you really need to know what they original said, go dig up the original reviews. I stand by my KEEP...there are THREE reliable reviews (even if they aren't available online anymore) Donald D23   talk to me  23:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stand by whatever you want. I checked the PopcornQ site. Google shows me a Popcorn Company, lol. We are down to one critical review which isn't enough to pass WP:NFILM.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the review happened, just because it is no longer online does not discredit it. Roger Ebert is dead, does that mean all of his reviews no longer count? Rotten Tomatoes considers the PopcornQ review to be a reliable critic (even if the site no longer exists), and Wikipedia considers Rotten Tomatoes to be reliable. Therefore, we are back to 3 reliable source reviews. Your opinion does not override consensus. Donald D23   talk to me  01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It actually does. We don't know to whom review belong. Was it a magazine? A website? A blog? Yes, Rotten Tomatoes does list blog entries sometimes, at least I stumbled on it once. That's why I use "Top Critics". What is PopcornQ? Do you know? I don't. If PopcornQ is a small time blog, that one day just disappeared - we can't use that. Also, our sources should be verifiable. That is, if we say that "PopcornQ gave a film 2.5 out of 5" we need to use PopcornQ, not Rotten Tomatoes. And, because we don't know what PopcornQ is, reliability becomes questionable. And no, this is not my opinion. This is consensus' opinion.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I checked WP:RSP for Rotten Tomatoes. It states: "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable".--Filmomusico (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Rotten Tomatoes [], "PopcornQ is not a Tomatometer-approved publication. Reviews from this publication only count toward the Tomatometer® when written by the following Tomatometer-approved critic(s): Brandon Judell" FYI, the reviewer for this film is Brandon Judell.   Donald D23   talk to me  02:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not approved by Rotten Tomatoes, then, my guess, we can't use it either. I will wait or seek a second opinion here. Rotten Tomatoes was known to put blogs as critical reviews, and no, I am not talking about The New York Times blogs (these we can use without any rejection by the consensus). Still, even if we know the author, that doesn't make the source more or less credible. Brandon Judell might be approved by Tomatometer, but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia will approve him. BTW, I see nothing mentioned of The Austin Chronicle and The Village Voice at WP:RSP.--Filmomusico (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every source will be listed at WP:RSP. The first line of the page says "This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus".  Clearly those 2 you mentioned have never been questioned by anyone who has a firm grasp on the understanding of "third party, independent coverage". If you doubt those sources, feel free to begin a discussion for them at WP:RFC.  But, as WP:RSP says, "For a source to be added to this list (WP:RSP), editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past".  So, even if you start a discussion for either of those 2, neither will be added to WP:RSP unless at least TWO discussions have taken place.  Donald D23   talk to me  13:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. In addition to the 2 Rotten Tomato reviews (by Christopher Null and Brandon Judell - who, like Null, is Tomatometer®-approved), just from simple Googling there is a decent summary/review in Variety, and another in Den of Geek by Tomatometer-approved Aliya Whiteley, plus a detailed synopsis at The Paley Center for Media. I know Google has its limitations, but I'm  willing to bet that if I searched for this in LexisNexis or Gale Cengage at my local library, and/or did a deep dive in film & television periodicals, I'd find multiple additional reviews and coverage, even if brief. Not every film is Citizen Kane, but not every encyclopedia article need to be War and Peace length to be complete and neutral. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per found reviews above, indicates that it meets the threshold. matt91486 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added Den of Geek and Variety reviews. After Animalparty! suggested those, I am withdrawing my nomination. I don't know why I was unable to find those.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:31, 15 August 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.