Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A California Christmas: City Lights

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.

A California Christmas: City Lights

A California Christmas: City Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Draftify article per

• Neutral comment The film went up two days ago and is a sequel to
  chatter) 01:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I also have an issue with the original. I don't think that two reviews from these blog style websites that indiscriminately review every film that is released on Netflix should be considered with much weight when it comes to notability. However, I am in the minority in that. A merge of this into the original would be a great compromise and would definitely bolster the other article as well. BOVINEBOY2008 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I did some improvements to the first film's page, so notability for that shouldn't be an issue. I also want to note that Common Sense Media is typically seen as a RS. They aren't really indiscriminate in their reviews per se, but they do put an emphasis on reviewing stuff that is popular. Ready Steady Cut is questionable - they have an editorial team but their advertising angle is a bit vague. Meaww (MEA WorldWide) looks ok at first glance but their contact page mentions "custom solutions" so that's a bit vague. If it's the same as the one mentioned in this book excerpt then it doesn't really look all that promising. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My general recommendation thus far would be to have a single page as opposed to two, but I'll try to find other sourcing as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created this article but am not opposed to a merge with the original film if that is a better fit. I was under the impression that the references that I used were reputable despite being "what to watch this week" type articles. For future reference, are these frowned upon even though they are legitimate news/media outlets? Thank you all for the insight here! Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fails
  WP:NFILM #1. Appearance on Netflix satisfies the first part, but routine coverage does not replace the need for two nationally known reviews. Slywriter (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Reviews look to establish notabilty.Slywriter (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep based on these two reviews in
  SF Chronicle,[1] and Decider.[2] Those combined with the Variety article about the film's production should be enough for notability imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral - In its current state, the article should not be kept, but the article should be expanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the reviews in SF Chronicle and Decider together with other coverage push the film over
  WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I added new references to this article for support/credibility as well as a reception section. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - Two more reviews have appeared on
  Sportskeeda[4]. Whether either of these counts as a nationally known film review is dubious. The film has an audience rating of 42% on Rotten Tomatoes[5], based on fewer than 50 ratings; the only review linked is the already mentioned review on Decider. Mdulcey (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round as we're out of the holidays
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The reviews are real and more will come. Speedy attacks an the fresh work of editors is, in my opinion, ugly. —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is enough discussion of this film in the aforemenhioned RS sources (Variety, Decider, SFchronicle) to make it notable, the film is new, and no doubt there will be more commentary on it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2022 (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.