Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet in Focus

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planet in Focus

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

Tagged on notability grounds in 2011. I can't find anything to really show how notable this festival is, and can't see any other way to go than deletion. Cloudbound (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Delete It is mentioned in Financial Post, and lots of non-RS show it as a long-running public-spirited environmental-festival that does good work but receives no real media attention. No small wonder the environment is seen as in peril. No media yes. Maybe if they had sponsorship from Coca Cola or Ford Motors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Struck. See below[reply]

Keep I'm very surprised to find myself on the opposite side of Michael when he !votes delete, but I disagree that there aren't enough reliable sources in these Gnews search results to get by. This, for example is an item about the festival -- not a full article, but an RS -- in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation daily. Here we have an article in Reelscreen, trade journal for Canada's documentary film sector. Torontoist has covered the fest, here. There's enough to meet WP:GNG, surely. Maybe the problem is simply the suggested search terms. Search for "Planet in Focus" + "Film festival," as I did. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the Star and Torontoist ref to verify some statements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for the start at Quality improvement by Shawn in Montreal. — Cirt (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:ORG. Happy to reverse myself. Apparently my google-foo was temporarily broken. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll work on it too. I also want to make sure that this doesn't happen to this article. I didn't see it when it happened but it's a classic case of WP:NOTPAPER and it pretty much ensures that the article on the even more notable Hot Docs fest in Toronto will remain a stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn in Montreal's improvements. It meets GNG per the reliable sources found. Jim Carter 20:23, 20 October 2015 (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.