420:. To quote the discussion that established that, "There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed." Please familiarize yourself with the sources listed on that page. Thanks.
562:
this and other films into an overall combo/list article on the film series - maybe even a page that covers the series as a whole. At 6-7 movies, there are going to be some that are notable, some that aren't, and some that are borderline. It makes sense to have an article that covers them all, as well
484:
I'm not saying CSM is enough on its own, I was simply pointing out that your assessment of CSM as not being a reliable source was incorrect, as your opinion on the reliability of a source does not override the combined opinions of multiple
Knowledge editors over several discussions about CSM. With
347:
I don't think the Good House
Keeping source really speaks to the notability of this film. The article simply gives a brief synopsis of each film and then ranks them based on the opinion of the writer. There's no actual coverage of the film in the article. One trade article about casting and one
382:
itself, it doesn't singlehandedly clinch the standalone notability of all of its sequels just because it mentions their names. And the
Broadway World source is written very much like a press release, rather than independent analysis, so it's not adding much either. We're not just looking for
375:
for establishing the notability of films; it's an advocacy organization, not a media outlet with established and notable and recognized film critics writing for it. Good
Housekeeping source is just a blurb, not substantive coverage — while it would be fine as a source in
201:
563:
as perhaps covers the TV series as well. That would be a good landing page for any of the non-notable or borderline films, plus TBH it's something that should exist as a whole. I've started a draft at
195:
162:
613:
BTW, feel free to rename the article as is appropriate - I wasn't sure if the films and TV show would make up a franchise or not, but didn't know what else to call it.
391:
claim, such as actual critical reviews from genuine film or television critics in real media and/or evidence that it won or was nominated for major film or television
276:
543:
I think that if the consensus winds up being delete, rather than losing the information, a combined article on the film series would be a viable alternative.
417:
256:
135:
130:
109:
311:. Also, film is a part of a series of films that all have articles on Knowledge, why single one out? Seems like all or none should have been nominated.
139:
94:
122:
216:
564:
485:
that said, yes, other sources are needed to make this article pass WP:NFILM, but CSM is definitely one source that counts toward it.
183:
248:
89:
82:
17:
53:
177:
648:
627:
608:
581:
552:
538:
494:
479:
429:
404:
361:
340:
320:
288:
268:
126:
64:
103:
99:
173:
591:
665:
620:
601:
574:
40:
223:
511:
118:
70:
450:
non-primary source". Even if Common Sense Media is accepted as the former (although note that it comes with
358:
245:
661:
644:
36:
189:
614:
595:
568:
548:
529:
490:
425:
336:
316:
284:
264:
209:
354:
241:
442:
There's a big difference between "acceptable as a source of entertainment reviews amid a solid
475:
400:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
660:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
640:
459:
349:
446:
of GNG-worthy sources" and "instant maker of a GNG pass all by itself if it's an article's
544:
517:
486:
455:
421:
378:
332:
312:
280:
260:
58:
308:
233:
514:
than delete all of these, since it leads into an N-met long-term television series?
471:
409:
396:
372:
237:
156:
454:), it is unequivocally not the latter. For example, even if we accept it, both
639:
to the franchise page detailed above where content has been merged, imv
232:
Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage to meet
510:
Wouldn't it be better to create a combo article on the films at
656:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
387:— we're looking for verification that it has a credible
152:
148:
144:
208:
348:
online review I'm not confident really is considered
54:The Good Witch (franchise)#The Good Witch's Charm
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
668:). No further edits should be made to this page.
416:is indeed a reliable source for notability. See
275:Note: This discussion has been included in the
255:Note: This discussion has been included in the
565:User:ReaderofthePack/The Good Witch (franchise)
222:
8:
418:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
277:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
274:
254:
257:list of Film-related deletion discussions
7:
303:], plus coverage at Broadway World
24:
331:to newly created franchise page.
95:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
567:if anyone can help with this.
371:. Common Sense Media is not a
301:.Review at Common Sense Media
1:
383:verification that the film
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
685:
592:The Good Witch (franchise)
649:00:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
628:17:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
609:15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
582:12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
553:20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
539:16:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
495:16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
480:15:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
430:15:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
405:15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
362:13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
341:02:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
321:12:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
289:12:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
269:12:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
249:11:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
65:06:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
658:Please do not modify it.
590:This page now exists at
512:Good Witch (film series)
305:] and Good Housekeeping
32:Please do not modify it.
618:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
599:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
572:(formerly Tokyogirl79)
412:, you are incorrect.
119:The Good Witch's Charm
71:The Good Witch's Charm
83:Articles for deletion
69:
350:significant coverage
414:Common Sense Media
307:] seem enough for
619:
600:
573:
536:
470:critical review.
357:
327:Changing vote to
291:
271:
244:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
676:
624:
617:
605:
598:
578:
571:
537:
532:
526:
525:
520:
353:
240:
227:
226:
212:
160:
142:
80:
63:
61:
34:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
672:
666:deletion review
622:
615:ReaderofthePack
603:
596:ReaderofthePack
576:
569:ReaderofthePack
530:
523:
518:
515:
373:reliable source
169:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
59:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
682:
680:
671:
670:
652:
651:
633:
632:
631:
630:
611:
585:
584:
557:
556:
555:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
462:still require
435:
434:
433:
432:
379:The Good Witch
366:
365:
364:
345:
344:
343:
293:
292:
272:
230:
229:
166:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
681:
669:
667:
663:
659:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
629:
626:
625:
616:
612:
610:
607:
606:
597:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
580:
579:
570:
566:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
535:
533:
522:
521:
513:
509:
506:
505:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
380:
374:
370:
367:
363:
360:
356:
351:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
304:
302:
300:
299:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
243:
239:
235:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
67:
66:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
657:
655:
636:
621:
602:
575:
559:
527:
516:
507:
467:
463:
451:
447:
443:
413:
392:
388:
384:
377:
368:
328:
297:
296:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
76:
49:
47:
31:
28:
641:Atlantic306
196:free images
466:than just
389:notability
662:talk page
545:Donaldd23
487:Donaldd23
460:WP:TVSHOW
422:Donaldd23
355:BOVINEBOY
333:Donaldd23
313:Donaldd23
281:Shellwood
261:Shellwood
242:BOVINEBOY
37:talk page
664:or in a
637:Redirect
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
623:(｡◕‿◕｡)
604:(｡◕‿◕｡)
577:(｡◕‿◕｡)
531:chatter
508:Comment
472:Bearcat
456:WP:FILM
452:caveats
410:Bearcat
397:Bearcat
202:WP refs
190:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
393:awards
385:exists
369:Delete
309:WP:GNG
234:WP:GNG
174:Google
140:delete
560:Merge
329:merge
238:WP:NF
217:JSTOR
178:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
50:merge
16:<
645:talk
549:talk
519:Nate
491:talk
476:talk
464:more
458:and
448:only
426:talk
401:talk
359:2008
337:talk
317:talk
298:Keep
285:talk
265:talk
246:2008
236:and
210:FENS
184:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
60:czar
468:one
444:mix
224:TWL
161:– (
52:to
647:)
594:.
551:)
493:)
478:)
428:)
403:)
395:.
352:.
339:)
319:)
287:)
279:.
267:)
259:.
204:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
56:.
643:(
547:(
534:)
528:(
524:•
489:(
474:(
424:(
399:(
335:(
315:(
283:(
263:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.