Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nine Lives of Christmas (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The Nine Lives of Christmas
AfDs for this article:


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

No more notable now than it was when it was redirected a year ago. The WP:BEFORE I did then showed no RSes and at least this recreated article has one. The others are either discussions of a book (I did not read them to determine if the book was the basis of the film or written after it) or blogs, or lists. Fails notability criteria. I have no objections to restoring the redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I need to do more research, but it's probably notable. It performed exceptionally well ratings-wise, which gives off the impression that there is likely coverage. The article can also serve as a landing page for coverage of the sequel as well, most likely. However before I make any actual judgement I want to find better sourcing. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It turns up in New York Times article and earns a paragraph. Also hits in NPR, deadline, snopes.com and many others...Seems to have enough traction for a Hallmark Film to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an article in NYT? Not in the article. Not that see. Do you mean the passing mentions in https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/movies/netflix-hallmark-christmas.html or https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/arts/television/christmas-movies-fit-for-the-small-screen.html ? That's not WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added better sourcing to the article and did some general cleanup. It's not super solid, but it's enough to justify a keep, particularly as it can serve double duty by being a landing page for the sequel as well. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing some of the cruft, but the sources are still passing mentions or unreliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, at this point it's up to the closing admin. I'd also like to note to the closing admin that I was previously one of the people who argued for a delete in the last AfD. The search deities must have been kinder on this film this time around, while I was looking for sources. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep -- as it currently stands, this seem sufficient to indicate notability. Some Hallmark movies indeed don't get any media coverage, but that is not the case with this one. matt91486 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. If there are other Hallmark movies that need to have their articles deleted, we can arrange for that. The sources do not help the article meet Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how OSE is applicable here. I was very clearly differentiating this piece from the various Hallmark movie articles that have gone through AFD in the past several months. And clearly we disagree on these sources being applicable for meeting the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing is good enough for WP:GNG as there has been enough independent coverage. Maybe not as in-depth as the nominator would like, but that's the purpose of these discussions, to offer differing sides and let an admin make the ultimate decision. Donald D23   talk to me  14:47, 4 February 2022 (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.