Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle at Moreaux

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 keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle at Moreaux[edit]

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

non notable made for tv film. WP:NOT IMDB. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep very intense and emotional film, the article needs to be written in a better way and more references attached to the story and notable people, Gaijin42 is right the way the article is, if it can not be improved then should be deleted. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"intense and emotional" have nothing to do with Wikipedia:NOTFILM Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not going to set any breadth-of-sourcing records, but there's better than nothing out there: eFilmCritic review [1], LA Times Review [2], Orlando Sentinel announcement [3] (paywalled, link to abstract), and a review from Stephen F. Austin State University's Clio's Eye [4] (about which we can have a lively discussion regarding source reliability, I am certain). Regardless, that's probably enough to squeak past the inclusion threshold. If for some reason it's not, then my distant second choice would be to merge to Claire Huchet Bishop (since the adapted book does not have its own article). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone done a newspaper search? Most coverage is likely to come from 1980s US or Canadian newspapers. I'm not totally sure if this is notable, but if not, merge to Claire Huchet Bishop who is notable despite her short article (or create an article on the book). Sadly it's a lot easier to propose deletion than merging on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not as well known as some of the other films out there, but there was some coverage that was still visible today. I can also see where it's on several teachers' lists of stuff to show in the classroom. ([5], [6], [7]) There's just enough to where it can just manage to squeak by notability guidelines, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
Keep seems sufficiently notable for inclusion as a separate article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 23 October 2013 (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.