Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nine Lives of Christmas


 * 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 redirect to List of American films of 2014. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Christmas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD was contested because a review was found at "The Movie Scene" (which is a site I cannot find). My WP:BEFORE finds no sources. Article only has WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable work and unlikely to become more notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of American films of 2014. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the Movie Scene site . Also found Radio Times review Donaldd23 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The moviescene.co.uk is not a reliable source. Their about page indicates that Andy Webb wrote all of the reviews, and he does not have credentials as a reviewer. The database entry at radiotimes.com has no reviewer and is not extensive coverage. I don't believe either add to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it (LoL). :-P I was like, whaaaa??!!! Where did Walter go? -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Kirkus Reviews are an established reviewer, and have reviewed this film of the book here Screener: The Nine Lives of Christmas. 5 December 2020. Kirkus Reviews also have their own wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C20C:9000:D89B:429E:AA22:1CDD (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please advise how this film is less notable than Hallmark Movies Recipe for Love or Midnight Masquerade, which have not been suggested for deletion. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.93.228 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it hasn't been brought up for AfD. If you feel it not notable then submit it for AfD and let the process begin. That's your call. This film is not notable, however, and it is before us now. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought this was a discussion page, but by your comment "This film is not notable, however, and it is before us now.", it appears your decision has already been made. A level of impartiality may have been desirable whilst more evidence may have been gathered, but perhaps this Wolf doesn't like films featuring cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C20C:9000:A06C:6568:4301:C104 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion page and no decision has been made. We are attempting to determine, using reliability criteria, whether it is or is not notable. I suspect that you knew that though. The review from Kirkus did not appear in my search, and I'm not sure if it's enough to help us determine if it should be kept. If you find more, that would help turn the tide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL, IP. Notability can only be established by way of indepth coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources. The existence of other articles is a moot point because whether or not they are notable does not have any bearing on this film. If they are notable then they will be kept, but if they are not then pointing them out only raises the likelihood that they will be in turn nominated for deletion.
 * As far as whether or not Wolf did due diligence, assume that he has. Unless there is very obvious evidence that someone didn't search, you should assume that they've looked for sourcing. Even then you should assume WP:GOODFAITH because there are a wide variety of things that can impact sourcing such as location, search engine, and search terms. That's why multiple people weigh in here, as the more people who search the more likely that any potential sourcing will be found. As far as potential for sourcing goes, the article can only be kept if there is enough evidence to establish that there was substantial coverage for the film. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments and I feel everyone should have their opinion but also agree with Walter that this is not the place for it. If you would like to continue a discussion on my talk page I would welcome that so long as it is civil. I am all for inclusion but I must make my personal ruling on my personal interpretation of a very vague notability guideline. I did search for sources. I spent hours, again, this morning, searching for sources and came to the same conclusion. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 15:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further assessment of the sourcing provided during the discussion, and further views generally, would be preferred to reach a clearer consensus.
 * Redirect or Delete -Fails notability criteria in WP:N. Not opposed to redirect as suggested by . -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I love Hallmark holiday films, but I couldn't find enough to establish notability. The Kirkus review isn't enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I didn't realize this page would bring up so much discussion :) . I've added some more citations, including a small piece from a deputy editor of The New York Times saying this film was worth watching. Hopefully this will be adequate. I've also been told by a friend that this film is popular amongst certain Indian cultures, as the cat may be a reincarnation of the firefighter's deceased family member, helping to guide him to happiness. Unfortunately I have found absolutely nothing to corroborate this, however, I did find this mention on an Indian website, saying that Brandon Routh was popularly known for his films and series like Arrow, The Nine Lives of Christmas, Superman Returns and more - https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/hollywood-news/hollywood-celebs-who-have-acted-in-indian-films.html . They therefore appear to regard this film rather highly. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObscureF9 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That reference is a mention that "Brandon Routh" was in the film. It is not significant coverage of the film itself, which, unfortunately even after your additional references are still not present in the article, although it it is much better now than it was when I nominated it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the comment in the NYT, is also a passing mention at the end of the season's Hallmark offerings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's ok, completely understand. There's not really enough going for it so I'm withdrawing my objection and am ok for it to be deleted then. ObscureF9 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're expecting WP:HEY, not with the new sources. Passing mention or otherwise poor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are some sources, but they do not add up to meeting the notability guidelines as far as I can see. These kinds of generic TV movies often get the passing mentions you'd expect to acknowledge they exist, but it does not seem to have inspired sufficient substantial coverage of it specifically. ~ mazca  talk 12:44, 5 February 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.