Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela's 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 no consensus. The comments lean to Keep but given the limited participation and few sources surfaced, I don't see a clear consensus here, and it has already been relisted twice. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's Christmas

[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)

Short film which does not pass

WP:NFILM. Press is simply on sites which are like TV Guide, or Leonard Maltin's guides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is valid because it has references from Decider and Hot Press. Thornstrom (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ugh. I don't know. There is the coverage of the movie on
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - I am seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in otherwise reliable/mainstream print sources (for example the pieces in
Daytime Emmy and Emile Awards nominations. But there would seem to be enough of it to warrant a keep. It's not overwhelming. Hence "weak".... Guliolopez (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 16 August 2019 (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.