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. John254 01:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home of Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable film - although sources have been added, these only prove its existence, not its notability. Fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the movie's notable stars Abe Vigoda and Sherman Hemsley.--DrWho42 (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC):[reply]
• Delete Under the criteria for films by notable actors sometimes meriting their own article, (see here), it also states "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.". That's not the case with this film, as far as I can tell. I can only find bare mention of this film on the New York Times website [1], Rotten Tomatoes [2] and Variety [3]. No reviews or substantial press or reviews. The film is already mentioned in the filmography section for Abe Vigoda and Sherman Hemsley, and since there's not enough additional information available from outside sources, that's sufficient enough mention of the film on Wikipedia in my opinion. Raven1977 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Keep. After seeing the sources found and added to the article, I think the article now meets notability criteria. Since it's now obvious it's been reviewed by at least one reliable publication, I think that's sufficient. Raven1977 (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's in Leonard Maltin's movie guide and there's more information about it on TV Guide's website: [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TV Guide, an in-depth review in a reliable source... even if they panned it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Have cleaned up per Film MOS, added sources, expanded, and wikified. Notability is now apparent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements in sourcing, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (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.