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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Up: A Mother's Rage[edit]

Locked Up: A Mother's Rage (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)

I don't believe this minor TV movie meets WP:NFILM. The LA Times review is the only substantial review I could locate. The Radio Times review is less than 100 words, making it hardly significant coverage. A check of Google, GBooks, and Newspapers.com brought up nothing in the way of either contemporary coverage or retroactive commentary. One of the actresses was awarded the "Best Young Actress in Television Movie" award for the film at the 14th Youth in Film Awards, but I can't see any coverage of the win, so it confers no notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that the Radio Times review isn't significant coverage. No where in WP:SIGCOV does it state a word minimum. It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The review is not only the main topic, but it is more than a trivial mention. Radio Times also meets the "reliable", "secondary sources", and "independent of the subject" criteria. Taken with the LA Times review, that meets the 2 review requirement of WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Donaldd23, NFILM specifies not just two reviews, but "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." 85 words is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a full-length review, and Joanna Berry (the RT "reviewer") is not a nationally-known critic. So the film does not in fact meet the two review requirement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what these discussions are for, to offer differing opinions and for an admin to take both sides into account and make their decision. You alone do not determine what is or is not a qualified review, as RT is a reliable source, and since the internet is world-wide, not local, anyone that RT publishes is, in-fact, a "nationally-known critic". Unless you are privy to a list of "acceptable" critics that the rest of us are not. So, I, again, disagree, and feel that this review does make it meet the requirements. And, as I stated before, "full-length" has no word minimum requirement. It is subjective. Maybe I think 50 words is ok. Others might not think 500 words is enough. All subjective. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most absurd interpretation of a notability guideline I've ever heard. Being published on the internet does not make one a nationally-recognized critic. You need actual name recognition for that, and if you want to claim that Joanna Berry has any, you need to provide proof. For all we know, Joanna Berry is an intern who got called in as a pinch hitter because her boss got sick one day. And the idea that you can communicate any depth of criticism in 85 words is ridiculous - especially considering that there was so little to say about this film that fully 25% of the length of the Radio Times blurb is dedicated to mentioning that Angela Bassett got an Oscar nom for an entirely different film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variety published a review in their publication in 1991. I don't have access to Variety's archives (maybe someone else does), but it was republished in a book of Variety reviews [1]. A free preview of the page it is on is unavailable, but as the free pages that are available one can easily tell that these are full reprints of full Variety reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see it in book view for some reason - it's actually quite lengthy. It looks to be about 14 paragraphs long. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage - doesn't reach WP:100W in any presented source. casualdejekyll 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, the addition of Variety here means I'm changing to a 'Comment. casualdejekyll 15:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we now have LA Times, Variety and other newspaper reviews added to the article since nomination. In discussions at Wikiproject Film nationally known critics has been defined as refering to critics writing for a high profile national publication or website, rather than individual status, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added several reviews and also cobbled together a production and release section from what I can find online. It looks like it's gone under several different names, so that definitely made it harder to find sourcing. The impression I'm getting is that there's definitely more out there, it's just likely not as easily found online, assuming all of it's online at all. It looks like it was relatively heavily covered and for the most part, heavily panned. I get the impression it's likely based on a documentary with the same name as the working title that came out about a year earlier, but no solid proof of this anywhere. Also, apparently it had ties to HBO at one point according to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 9 February 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.