Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Good Witch's Family


 * 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  withdrawal. After the work done by Michael Q. Schmidt, I wholeheartedly apologize for this one. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The Good Witch's Family

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Google Books hits for "The Good Witch's Family" Hallmark all predate the film, the one Google News hit is coincidental, and Google News archives hits appear to be routine coverage. There's no evidence of any lasting notability whatsoever. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge after trim (which may end up just being a redirect) to The Good Witch. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it remarkable that a Hallmark Channel film has not recieved any coverage or reviews, specially as it did win a Young Artist Awards nomination for Matthew Knight. Well... I just gave the thing a cleanup for format, but the plot section is hidiously overlong. Will be looking for RS in the morning.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been waiting for someone to finally write the article for this move for a long time. I'm glad someone did. Thank you to whoever wrote the article, i have no idea how to write one so thanks for writing it. I saw is was going to be deleted. Please don't delete it, it's a great article with a lot of *very* good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempymarie (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 July 2012
 * Please base your comments in this discussion on policies and guidelines rather than personal opinion. If you want for the article to be kept, you should find sources that show its notability. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the comment was not an !vote being made... a closer will weigh it for what it's worth.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 
 * 


 * Spanish:
 * Spanish:
 * French:
 * French:
 * Italian:
 * United Kingdom:


 * Keep per work done on improving the article. Excessive plot has been reduced from 1345 words to 515. Sources have been found and added and article is looking far better than when first nominated... just 21 minutes after being authored.  While it might have been reasonable to allow its author a litle time to address issues after it was tagged for concerns by User:Blanchardb 10 minutes after its creation, instead of nominating for deletion after only eleven more minutes, that issue is moot.  While this Hallmark Channel family film series will never have the dame extensive coverage as does the Harry Potter (film series)... so what? Even my minor work so far shows that issues are adressable. More to do? Certainly. But per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT, such can be dealt with over time and through regular editing and do not require a deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 7 July 2012 (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.