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The result was SPEEDY KEEP, nomination withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Piano Lesson (film)[edit]

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

~~Non notable TV movie, fails WP:NFILM, PROD removed with edit summary: "To prevent sockpuppet" Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film won a Peabody Award, an Image Award, a SAG Award, a Cinema Audio Society Award, an Image Award (plus 2 nominations), and was nominated for 9 Emmys and a Golden Globe.[1] Obviously passes WP:NFILM.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding it difficult to understand how the first television presentation of a Pulitzer Prize-winning play and a movie that was nominated for nine major Emmy awards could fail WP:NFILM. I'll agree that the article itself fails to make a case for it, but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable; it means that someone has to check, probably offline since this was 1994-5, for third-party notice for this movie. --NellieBly (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep With respects to the nominator, we do not delete demonstrably improvable articles on notable topics simply because they were created 13 days earlier as a stub,[2] or because a fairly new editor[3] might not show understanding of how to contest a deletion prod.[4] With just a little research it is easily found the film won and was nominated for multiple notable awards, the film is covered in numerous news sources[5] as well as in multiple books[6] and studies by scholars.[7] Rather than delete such because they begin life imperfectly, we can improve them just as we are encouraged to do. I note that the unsourced stub that was first nominated[8] is already looking better.[9] Just takes a little editing. Please, it would be reasonable to withdraw and close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and keep. Whilst I found sourcing for a stage play, I found nothing except IMDb and Amazon for the film, so kudos to those who dug further. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2011 (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.