Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent River Film Festival

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. The delete votes are the only people that are using policy to back up their posission. The usrserfy !votes are de facto delete !votes since there was no intended target for userfacation. If you would like a copy of this for your userspace please post on my talk page. Guerillero | My Talk 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silent River Film Festival

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

Subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Proposed deletion was removed. Article appears to be promotional, with long lists of entries which have not been shown to be notable. This is not the Sundance Festival where films become notable because they appeared at the festival. Nor is notability inherited, so attempting to show notability by the length of the list of entrants is misguided. Yworo (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability and significance is evident from reliable sources (Times of India articles [1][2]), the notable organizer (Kalpna Singh Chitnis), the size of the inaugural festival (over 80 international films shown over eight days at multiple venues), and plans for this year's event ([3]). I think this year's festival will be better covered by the press so we'll have improved sourcing going forward. Jojalozzo 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is Kalpna Singh Chitnis notable? That article was mostly a copyright violation from Times of India and also doesn't meet WP:BIO. Yworo (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; although it maybe notable one day, from what I can find, there is not enough current significant coverage from third party reliable sources to have the subject of the article pass GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost every film festival is notable and this one seems particularly significant and in line with the precedent for the others that we include and seems to meet GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it in a notability essay, guideline, or policy that says that all film festivals are notable? The subject of the article, in my search for reliable sources, did not meet GNG. Furthermore, all the articles the mentions that I did find, I did not find a RS that passed INDEPTH. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I added some Times of India references some time back in order to lend the page a little more legitimacy, but it still seems rather dubious to me. If I were not an avowed inclusionist, I would be tempted to say "nuke it". Varlaam (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree with Varlaam (talk to userfy it, and then come back to mainspace when the festival has been held again. Linking to awardees would certainly be a good idea, too.
Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: The Times of India-1 (extensive article), The Times of India-2, and (to a lesser extent in terms of the geographic extent of the publication) coverage in student newspaper The Daily Titan. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Even while accepting the coverage, this is the first year this festival has taken place and we have no assurances that it will have a second year and it so-far has no lasting WP:EFFECT or WP:PERSISTENCE. As a so-far one-time WP:EVENT and could be seen to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As above... when this one has a second year, an article would be well worth considering. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that it'll be held again next year? Dream Focus 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a major event, there 80 films shown, ample media coverage, and a major company, Sony Creative Software, gave out prizes. Dream Focus 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject does not appear to meet notability per WP:EVENT due to it not passing WP:EFFECT & WP:GEOSCOPE, regardless of number of films shown; furthermore media coverage does not appear to be significant IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2012 (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.