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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Match (2015 film)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The film is a well-known production with famous actors that was broadcast on a major cable television channel. Sourcing can easily be added to bring it up to snuff. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched for significant coverage and have not found much other than listings of when the film is airing. Existence is not notablility, and a film's notability is not inherited by who was in it or how it was shown. Per WP:NF, adapted from WP:GNG, a film should only have a stand-alone article if it "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." BOVINEBOY2008 22:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Films are not automatically notable just because it's technically possible to verify that they exist — the notability test for a film is not "has famous actors in it", and instead requires things like (a) notable film or television awards, (b) demonstrable box office or ratings success, and/or (c) enough attention paid to it by film or television critics to get it over WP:GNG on its sourceability. But none of those are on offer here. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to show a passing of our notability guidelines for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a few reviews: [[1]], [[2]], and [[3]]. Probably fall short from "significant" coverage, don't they? Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these are blogs/SPS and are not by notable critics. Thus they do not speak to the notability of the film. ~~2600:1006:B121:D19B:D8E:7F0F:76AC:42D1 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)~~ Sorry, this was me. I was logged out on my phone. BOVINEBOY2008 18:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BOVINEBOY's assessment of the provided references. Kolma8 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From what I can see, fails GNG and NFILM doubtless. Java Hurricane 02:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.