Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Incredible Mrs. Ritchie

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The result was nomination withdrawn. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Mrs. Ritchie

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Rotten Tomatoes lists the film but has no score for it, which I imagine means nobody has taken any note of it. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the nom looked for sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is why we have
The San Francisco Chronicle, which did not [4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This does need referencing improvement, but there are credible notability claims — it won three Emmy awards, and got nominated for two more, and I'm completely on board with Arxiloxos that "when one sees a film starring Gena Rowlands and James Caan, at least a minimal amount of research ought to precede any consideration of deletion". Rotten Tomatoes is always worth checking for some help in locating potential sources, but it is not an infallible judge of the existence or non-existence of proper sourceability for a film — and that's especially true when the subject is a television film rather than a theatrical one. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination. I did do a search, but didn't see anything in the first few pages. Three Emmys are a fairly convincing claim to notability. And while I'm making ewxcuses, I do wish that editors would include such basics when creating an article. I came across an article at AfD that was there because, inter alia, the writer had omitted the fact that the artist in question had been the British exhibit at the Venice biennale and had had a retrospective at the Tate.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (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.