Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery (2016 film)

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery (2016 film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim being attempted here is that it won an award at a minor film festival whose existence I'm completely unable to verify — I can find absolutely no Google hits for it whatsoever aside from this filmmaker's own résumé, suggesting that it may possibly be one of those fake "film festivals" that don't really screen films for the public, but just hand out "awards" for PR purposes. Five of the nine footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb and the filmmaker's self-published PR — and of the four footnotes that are real media, three are local human interest coverage about the person profiled in the film, thus not speaking to the notability of the film as it's more about the person than the film, and the only one that's substantively about the film in its own right is a weekly community hyperlocal in the same city, thus not enough coverage to singlehandedly get this film over WP:GNG all by itself as the only reliable source about the film in play. Nothing here is sufficient to make this film notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's extensive explanation. I couldn't find anything either. Ravenswing 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing to suggest a clear of WP:NFILM on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com, library.syr.edu, and proquest. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 26 August 2020 (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.