Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards


 * 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. Consensus to keep (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 12:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting that non-admin closure of this discussion.

These deletion discussions are, in all cases, debates. Reasoned, policy based arguments based upon clear, factual discourse will be given prefernce in determining "rough consensus" over opinions, or policy arguments based upon interpretations outside of the cultural norms.

The nominator of this article for deletion specifically points to Wikipedia:Notability and says that "no single reliable source" could be found. That guideline specifically exludes press releases, as the nominator states so vociferously. The sources provided all clearly fall into that category, even to the extreme of being labeled as such. No credible refutation of this argument was presented.

Delete.

brenneman 13:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This closure was subsequently overturned to no consensus at Deletion review/Log/2009 February 8. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Artivist Film Festival &amp; Awards
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable film festival, not a single reliable source in the article. Scoured Google News for articles about it and found only press releases. Delete as per WP:NOTE. Peephole (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —Peephole (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Have you seen this search? 22,000 hits and Google reveals a mention on the BBC website. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: A Google search, what about it? Google hits aren't a claim to notability (20.000 ghits isn't even a lot). Also, please provide the BBC link you are talking about. The only one I found was about a different festival. Finally, keep in mind that we're looking for "several reliable sources" that provide "significant coverage". --Peephole (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right about the BBC link, it's for a different festival but it does refer to an award coming from this one as 'prestigious'. I'll have a closer look for reliable sources, but I'd feel bad deleting this now. I have a hunch there's more behind this than you first thought. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you take a closer look at that source, it uses very fluffy language for every movie it lists . Honestly, looks like they just copy-pasted official summaries of the films. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep See, , and many others. Reuters is probably a fairly decent demonstration of notability. As someone else said, search google -- not to see the number of hits, but to see all the news outlets that post stories about the festival. It's quite notable.  Equazcion •✗/C • 21:30, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those are press releases, written by the festival's owners. Not independent sources. I did check Google and found the same sources as you, read more closely next time.--Peephole (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who wrote them. A reliable news organization doesn't pick up a story unless it's notable enough. The source that needs to be reliable is not the author, but the publication. If the reliable publication saw fit to carry the story, it's notable enough for us.  Equazcion •✗/C • 21:38, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those are articles written by the owners of the festival and then paid for to be distributed by a service called "Market Wire". Just because it somehow ended up on Reuters does not make this a reliable source.--Peephole (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Reuters doesn't blindly post every press release they're sent. If you wrote a press release on something non-notable, you couldn't get it to appear on Reuters, even if you paid Market Wire. Anyway, here are some from Variety:, .  Equazcion •✗/C • 21:56, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you look at the link url it even says "press release", real Reuters article are filed under stuff like "politicsNews", "entertainmentNews" and "scienceNews". We might as well start using the ads on the Reuters website as reliable sources. I mean, I'm sure Reuters wouldn't pick up an advertisement if it isn't notable. Here are some other examples of Reuters publishing press releases:, , , , , , This is a terrible, terrible source and should not be used on Wikipedia.--Peephole (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Real" Reuters articles? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people who would say Reuters is a bad source, yes even their press releases. But okay, let's see what others say about that. Regardless, we've got the Variety sources as well now.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:15, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check out the examples I provided? It's pretty clear it's just an advertising service. The Variety sources are better, but I don't think they're "significant" enough as Notability suggest they should be. --Peephole (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the way, Equazcion, Peephole is actually completely right about the press release. Drop Marketwire some money and they'll dump your press release on hundreds of media outlets, including newswires like Reuters . There might be some degree of fact-checking involved, but it doesn't count as "independent coverage" if you're paying them to carry it...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The festival seems pretty notable in my opinion, regardless of whether or not the sources available make it technically and wiki-legally notable (which I think it is regardless, but let's leave that aside for now). Granted it's not the Oscars, but it tours internationally, is attended by a lot of big names, and even mere mention in Variety is significant for an event. Considering those things, I think the article more than qualifies as being worth a Wikipedia article.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:37, 3 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for expansion, format, and additional sourcing. I am satisfied that Reuters, News Blaze, KPFK, Channel G, LA's The Place, and many others found with a cursory google search satisfy the notability and verifiability criteria for inclusion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Jesus Christ, does anyone actually read the discussions in afd's or do they just blindly post stuff? --Peephole (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, no one ever does. TL;DR. flaminglawyer 23:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I might ask that WP:CIVIL be maintained here. I did my own search and posted my opinion without letting myself be biased by WP:WAX arguments. Plus, I was courteous and polite. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would have read the above discussion, you would have known that the Reuters source was really bad.--Peephole (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He appears to disagree with you. It might be best to just leave it at that.  Equazcion •✗/C • 01:36, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for once in my life I would love to see editors who delete add references themselves instead of criticizing everyone elses'. Also keep because of the incivility of editors here. A lot of major news organizations reference this festival, as mentioned above. Nominator made zero effort to clean up this article before nominating the article for deletion, in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing", WP:BEFORE, WP:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL Remember that deletion is a last resort.Ikip (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate when the people on my side make arguments I don't agree with. I just have to speak up even though it hurts the keep side. The nominator did say he tried to find sources for this and didn't find any. Of course now that's changed, to not finding any that satisfy his criteria for a "good source". Furthermore I really think it's fine to nominate an article for deletion despite not being willing to try cleaning it up yourself, and there's no policy against that -- although again, the nominator does claim to have made that effort. All that having been said, I think this festival is quite notable and should be kept.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:08, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * To Equazcion; We each look at the same information with different eyes. WP:PRESERVE is an Official Policy of Wikipedia that is quite often sadly ignored. We can accept in good faith the nom's statement that he "scoured google for sources", but at the same time pursue our own search with perhaps different search parameters and are allowed to draw our own conclusions from our independent searches. To show examples of bad articles in Reuters is an argument that can be made of any Reliable Source, hence the GNG. Every WP:RS has portions that are unusable... without exception. If I have a good faith assumption that sources exist, that is enough for me to opine a keep. That I offered independent in-depth reviews that do not meet another's interpretation is fine as well. They need not agree with my opinion. There was just no cause for rudeness or WP:BITEy behavior. But Ikip is correct that nominating an article for deletion that might improve Wiki if it could otherwise have simply been tagged and sent to WP:CLEANUP does contravene the instructions and suggestions at WP:ATD. But that guideline is another that is often overlooked. Your opinion "The festival seems pretty notable in my opinion" toward an international film festival that gets coverage is good enough. Further, it is quite reasonable to expect that coverge will continue and get stronger. Its a keeper.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Preserve has nothing to do with deletion nominations. It's just about editing articles. ATD provides alternatives to deletion but doesn't tell us that, at all costs, we should avoid nominating things for deletion. The nominator in this case felt that there was enough of a possibility that the article could not be salvaged as to warrant discussing its removal. That's what a nomination is, after all, just a discussion, a way of saying "I think this article might not belong here, what does everyone else think?" If you want to think of deletion nomination as something no one should ever do unless they themselves have exhausted every other possibility for an article, that's a valid opinion shared by a few editors, but it is not yet a clear result of the current policies (though it is one possible interpretation). I think those who feel that way should band together and finally try to make it a policy once and for all. Really, write a page actually entitled "article deletion is your last resort", and see what the response is (and if you do that please leave me a mesage cause I'd be interested in how it turns out). Barring that, there's no grounds for saying yours is the only way to interpret current policy. Anyone can nominate anything whether or not they have put in a cleanup effort. I've never heard of a deletion discussion closing early cause someone didn't try cleaning up an article first. It's just not a rule yet. Maybe it should be.  Equazcion •✗/C • 07:03, 4 Feb 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep...per ikip above...also agree w/Editor:Schmidt to keep it civil. Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. That behavior just creates unnecessary animus.--Buster7 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment...considering the list of narrators presented in the article, how can it be other than Notable--Buster7 (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this one looks to be actually notable, wow. JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.