Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bogotá 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Bogotá Film Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2014 except for links to sources having to do with the films and I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would qualify for it for notability. Even the Spanish language article only has a single dead reference. So no evidence that this is a notable film festival. Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Could not find any indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. The IMDb source is good to validate information in the page but cannot be used to establish notability if it is of a user-generated origin. Multi7001 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a reliable source with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily classify that as SIGCOV, given that in the 760-page book, there is only a two-paragraph subtle mention. The book does state that the "Festival de Cine de Bogota" became the top international film festival in the country, which is a good indication of notability; however, there is no in-text citation or reliable source to validate that claim. The author of the book is not necessarily notable either. Multi7001 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course that is WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how long the rest of the book is, but there is nearly a page visible to me consisting of a section with the name of this festival as its title, and I can't see how long this continues on the next page(s). There is absolutely nothing in our guidelines that requires sources themselves to have citations (that way lies infinite regression) or their authors to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is always wise to look at the background of the author(s) of the book just like you would consider the author of a news media post, as any civilian can publish a paperback or e-book about their own thoughts, obtain an ISBN, and get listed on Google Books. The claim included in those several sentences of the book that mention the subject is sensational and may require validation through additional sources. The author added in-text citations for other claims but not that one. Eitherway, I don't see nearly any indication of notability, as the subject would require multiple reliable, independent sources with SIGCOV. The page fails WP:GNG. Multi7001 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see an indication of notability either based on that reference. I doubt Phil Bridger cares though. I had just reported him to ANI for attacking me in another AfD when he posted this. Since this and the other AfD are the only ones he's participated in for at least a couple of days, my guess is that he posted the link here after looking through my edits to find ones he could single out. He also attacked me in an un-related discussions after he made this comment. Which I think confirms that he was going around looking for edits of mine to scrutinize because I reported him to ANI and not really putting any thought into it beyond that. Especially in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And what on Earth does that have to do with whether a dedicated section of at least a few hundred words in a book published by a reputable publisher is significant coverage? And, for the record, you can see in the history that I made my first post in this discussion 90 minutes before you created the ANI report, and edited the article before that. Maybe I have a time machine? Or are your accusations simply more evidence that you are making things up to create a battleground rather than making good-faith efforts to reach a consensus? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My bad. It was during the other disagreement we were having. Although your correct that it was before the ANI complaint. That's on me for not being good at reading military time. That said, I find it to believe that it was merely random chance when there's hundreds of AfD that you could have participated in, but somehow managed to only comment on this AfD at the exact same time we were arguing about something in another one. Especially considering that you targeted me before with the whole racism nonsense. If you don't like me pointing out the obvious then I guess it's on you for following me around and not leaving me alone after I've asked you to multiple times. Don't act petty toward me and then cry foul about me treating things like a battleground or being bad faithed when I point out the facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But, Multi7001, the book was published by Rowman & Littlefield, not the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The book as a standalone source does not establish notability for the subject. There should be multiple reliable sources with SIGCOV. Perhaps there may be more sources in foreign media. Multi7001 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: There is likely multiple foreign language sources, my Spanish is sort of limited to cerveza but the following cites seem relevant: Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Al minuto: Película chilena triunfa en el festival de cine de bogotá. (2011, Oct 20). La Estrella De Panamá Retrieved from
 * Comedias latinas, plato fuerte del festival de cine de bogotá. (2014, Oct 16). El Espectador Retrieved from
 * En corto. (2014, Nov 07). Reforma Retrieved from
 * Finalizó la edición número 37 del festival de cine de bogotá. (2020, Oct 29). CE Noticias Financieras Retrieved from
 * Inicia el 26 festival de cine de bogotá. (2009, Oct 01). Notimex Retrieved from
 * La teta asustada triunfa en el festival de cine de bogotá. (2009, Oct 10). Frontera.Info Retrieved from
 * Se inauguró la edición número 37 del festival de cine de bogotá. (2020, Oct 22). CE Noticias Financieras Retrieved from
 * Luis Noe, O. G. (2010, Sep 10). Festival de cine de bogotá. El Tiempo Retrieved from
 * (All are Subbies). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just going off the titles of references I highly doubt that they are in-depth coverage of the film festival and not about other things. For instance one is called "The scared tit triumphs at the bogotá film festival." Whereas Another is called "Al minute: Chilean film triumphs at the Bogota Film Festival." Neither of those are about the festival and I highly doubt whatever degree it's discussed in those sources as opposed to the films is enough to be in-depth coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just checked them, these two are final reports of winners, such as Audrey Diwan’s ‘Happening’ wins 2021 Venice Golden Lion on historic night. Except a couple of very short, worthless ones they are all decent journalistic articles covering various editions of the festival. Cavarrone 17:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, basically for User:Phil Bridger. That book source alone is a remarkable proof of notability, you don't get a one page+ entry (plus a dozen of additional citations) in an Historical Dictionary of South American Cinema published by Rowman & Littlefield if you aren't a notable subject. Sources have to be weighted and not just counted, probably there are little festivals which have hundreds of easily available English-language newspaper sources, but which will be never eligible to be part of a printed encyclopedia by a reputable editor. The additional sources listed above are just a confirmation of passing the letter (or better, the number) of GNG requirements. Side note, besides 760 pages for a vast topic like South American Cinema from origins till today are not that big, the total number of pages of a book does not affect SIGCOV, otherwise an entry in Britannica (which is over 32,000 pages) would count for little more than nothing. Cavarrone 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the book establishing remarkable notability. With the other new sources that just emerged, I don't meddle with anything that is outside of the English language; and so, if there are multiple reliable sources in foreign mass media that demonstrate SIGCOV, and not passing mentions, there should be no problem with its inclusion. However, if the majority or all of the sources are in a foreign language, perhaps the page should be moved to a foreign subdomain of Wiki. Multi7001 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you are a newbie, but most of the arguments you are making in this AfD are strange theories wich are not-policy based, if not against-policy. The last one is covered in WP:V and in the already mentioned WP:SIGCOV, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". You can propose a wording change in the direction you hope, but I don't foresee too much luck, I don't think there would be a consensus in mass-deleting Japanese, Chinese, French, Italian, German, South-American topics, and basically every subject coming from a non English-speaking country (which except a few exceptions will always have an overwhelming majority of coverage in its native language). This is an international encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of themes popular in US/UK. BTW the article is currently sourced by three English-language sources. Cavarrone 09:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree that this an international encyclopedia IMO that shouldn't mean that people should be able to post non-English sources for a subject just because the source has the name of the of subject in it's title and then be like "Hey, no one here speaks the language including me and I can't really say if the sources talk about the subject in-depth either, but we should all assume they do since it's an international encyclopedia in English." Which is pretty much what this amounts to. We know the sources say "Bogota Film Festival" in them, we know nothing else outside of that because no here speaks Spanish, but we're are suppose to assume the references are in-depth "because international encyclopedia in English" or whatever. Put more simply, where do the guidelines say we can skip the requirement that the sources be in-depth as long as they aren't in English?


 * In the meantime I think that Multi7001 makes a good point in their last sentence, in that if none of us can determine if the references are in-depth or not because we don't speak the language then it's probably better to leave it to people who can make that determination, instead of just assuming things. Which in this case would likely be Spanish Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We know the sources say "Bogota Film Festival" in them, we know nothing else outside of that because no here speaks Spanish, but we're are suppose to assume the references are in-depth "because international encyclopedia in English". Lol, no one said that, so such a rant is pointless! In 2022 it's not that problematic translating foreign languages with translating tools, and personally I have a decent understanding of Spanish even without them. My only issue was that the sources were behind paywall, but I just realized they are accessible via Wikilibrary, and are in fact articles about some editions of the festival, including the ones you claimed were not. Cavarrone 17:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Why do you assume that nobody here knows Spanish? It's not exactly an obscure language to people who can read the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhhh because no one in this discussion has said they do? Otherwise I'm more then willing to strike that part of my comment out if you can point to anywhere that someone has said "I speak Spanish and know these sources are in-depth because I speak the language well enough to have read them."


 * I'll say a similar thing to you. Where has anyone here said they speak Spanish, have read the sources, and can say that they are in-depth? Djm-leighpark specifically said when he posted the references that his Spanish is limited and that the references "seem relevant." How exactly does that statement disagrees with what I said? In what world does "they seem relevant, but my Spanish is limited" mean "I know they have in-depth coverage because I speak Spanish good enough to have read them"? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have cut and sewn comments by three different users as to invent a fake, easily rebuttable argument that noone in their right mind would had ever advanced, an argument which has nothing to do with my "keep" reasoning above (which is not even based on the Spanish sources), and which has nothing to do with my exchange with Multi7001 (who has actually said something different from what you claim he said). At this point I suspect you're just blatantly bludgeoning the process and trolling, I have nothing left to say. Cavarrone  21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I cited was from a single user, Djm-leighpark, and it was a direct quote of something they said in their keep vote. "my Spanish is sort of limited to cerveza but the following cites seem relevant." Nowhere in my last two comments that I'm aware of did I reference anything that was said by Multi7001. Let alone was it something I invented by sewing together the comments of three users. Which is a rather bizarre claim. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Nor am I sure how citing what someone says is bludgeoning the process. I'm not trying to "win" anything here. I'm just stating the facts. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how neutrally stating the facts of what someone said is bludgeoning. Since that's not my intention.


 * That said, Strawmaning me about inventing comments is a rather bludgeoning and bad faithed way to treat this. Making up such spurious and easily disprovable claims does nothing to move the AfD discussion along either. I could ultimately give a crap if someone here can speak Spanish and can tell us if the references are in-depth or not. If anyone can, then by all means do so. But this needless, petty, off-topic side bickering by you and Phil Bridger doesn't help anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Djm-leighpark said that they didn't know Spanish very well. You said that nobody in this discussion knows Spanish. Is it really so difficult to see that you can't assume of everybody what one user has said about themself? Can't we just get on with discussing whether we should have an article without you introducing such irrelevancies all the time that mean that people just get tired of getting them out of the way before we get into a proper discussion? You are the only one who has introduced such "needless, petty, side bickering", nobody else. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No one had said they spoke Spanish well enough to read the sources at that point and we had been discussing it for a while by then. So it's not that much of a stretch to concluded that no one involved in the conversation could. Otherwise, they would have said so. If someone had of I would have been cool with that and asked them what they thought of the references. Like I'm not going to just assume everyone here is from Bogotá where this film festival is located when no one has said they are, just so a couple of people won't jump down my throat about it. Get real. We can all pretty reasonably assume none of us are from Bogota without me saying so turning into a massive disagreement. Your the one that turned it to a petty side debate by making it about me instead of keeping your bickerish personal opinions about me to yourself until someone who speaks Spanish could came along to say if the sources were in-depth or not. In the meantime if there's an ongoing conversation about Spanish where no one has said they speak Spanish beyond a basic level then I'm going to assume no one in the conversation can speak it beyond a basic level. Your petty, judgmental disagreement with me over that isn't my problem and it has nothing to do with the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (Editar conflicto) Hasta la vista, baby.


 * Keep. The book found by Phil Bridger is significant coverage, in my opinion (and its publisher, Rowman_&_Littlefield, doesn't seem to be a vanity press so Multi7001's concern on this is not relevant here). Some of the Spanish-language sources found by Djm-leighpark are passing mentions (about films that happened to be at the festival), but several which outline specific years' festival offerings seem to provide useful supplementary information. For instance, in the few sentences before the firewall kicks in, the 2020 CE Noticias Financieras one asserts "The Bogotá Film Festival has specialized in feature films by new directors". Not much, but indicative that we're going past random incidental mentions while purely focusing on individual movies. It's hard with all the subscription sources, but seems pretty clear we have quite a bit more to go on here than with many stubs. Martinp (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just come back from holiday so I haven't had a chance to look for sources yet. But I live in Bogota, and can state anecdotally that this film festival has become firmly established in the city in recent years. Granted, it hasn't supplanted the Cartagena Film Festival as Colombia's most important film festival, but I'd be fairly confident that I could find announcements of it in the country's newspapers every year. Richard3120 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, just for the 2021 edition alone, here is an article in one of Colombia's three main daily newspapers, El Espectador and another in the premier weekly magazine Semana  (Semana is Colombia's nearest equivalent to The Economist or Time magazine, so it's reputable). And it was covered by national radio station Caracol Radio, national public TV station Canal Trece , Shock (Colombia's long-running and only music and culture magazine) , and I suspect others. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bogotá International Film Festival is a different subject that has a page. Perhaps the subject may be known in foreign mass media under a different name variation. Multi7001 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already looked into that and they aren't the same film festival. This one was founded in 1984 and the international one was founded in 2015. They also have different awards/websites and so on. So it's extremely doubtful that media outlets are referring to the same festival under a different name variation. I probably should have mentioned it in the nomination message so there wouldn't be any confusion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This source that recently emerged appears reliable, even though it is unreadable because of the paywall and its foreign nature. However, it does state Bogotá International Film Festival in the content . I don't know if the other Proquest sources are pursuant to the subject per the paywall. Multi7001 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks as though your reference, which I assume is the last one that Djm-leighpark provided, is from an anonymous author/blog/uploader/whatever. So it isn't usable for notability. Hasta la vista, baby, maybe check your references better next time before you post them. Also, we should be posting links to the original sources if we can. Not random databases that are just acting as hosting/fille mirrors. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit to misplelling Notimex as Notimax. The anonymous can be quite normal for a publication if they are standing by the content.  The citation should have read: Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter where it comes from. Anonymous sources are still unusable for notability. Just like an op-ed isn't considered a reliable source even if it's being printed in an otherwise reputable news outlet. In this case it's kind of bizarre that it's written by an anonymous person in the first place. For all we know it could be an op-ed, letter to the editor, or paid for piece. Otherwise you'd think they would just say who the author is if they are an employee of the company.


 * If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." From what I can tell of the source it's stating facts. So it's not a reliable reference. Even if it was an opinion piece, it would have to be attributed to the author. Which can't be done if the author is anonymous. Maybe the editor, but Notmix isn't really the editor if it's an op-ed, letter, paid piece, or anything along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a categorical statement, "anonymous sources are still unusable for notability" is wrong. It is unsupposed by WP:NEWSORG, and there are definitely highly reputable news organizations that publish news articles without a credited author, such as The Economist. By all means let's make sure we're finding sources related to the right entity, and with a reasonable presumption of independence, and contributing to SIGCOV. But let's not invent ad hoc hurdles and assume they're part of deletion policy. Martinp (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I cited a policy when making the statement. So in no way was it an ad hoc hurdle. I'm sure there's exceptions to what WP:NEWSORG says. There are to every policy. The question is does the exception apply or not in this case. Which is way I posed the possible scenarios as to why this might be an anonymous work. Under some it might be usable for notability, others, likely not. I never claimed otherwise. Ultimately we don't know why it was written anonymously though. So at this the whole thing is a mental masturbation exercise, that some people can argue means it must be reliable and usable for notability because of. Personally, I prefer to air on the side of caution because there's other references that the authors of. I never claimed my opinion about it is the de-facto, 100% policy based way to do it every time in every instance. I think it would be a way to approach it here though, but again, that's just me.


 * As a side to that it's ridiculous that everything I say has to be proceeded by a long-winded disclaimer were I'm forced to point out things that would be apparent if people read my comments, like that my statement wasn't ad hoc because I supported it with a direct quote from WP:NEWSORG, but whatever. I'll do it if I need to. Especially if I continue to be strawmanned over such inconsequential, ridiculous nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most news articles are published without identifying the author, and those are the articles for which the publication itself takes responsibility for reliability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit for a number of reasons, least of which is because there's no way in hell to measure if most news are published without identifying the author or not, but it's a completely ridiculous assertion anyway. Especially in this case. I didn't look through every single article published by Notimex, but most of the ones I saw identified the author. I could really give two craps if some local special interest news blog in the appalachian mountains or whatever doesn't say who the authors of their blog posts are. That's not what this discussion is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the top, most reliable news outlets in the world, not some local special interest news blog in the Appalachian Mountains. Can't we have a straighforward discussion without such idiocy as you keep introducing? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The idiocy that keeps getting introduced is you discussing "the top, most reliable news outlets in the world" instead of Notimex where this reference comes from. Your free to apply what I said to the New York Times. It isn't Notimex so I don't care about it in relation to this discussion anymore then I do some local, special interest news blog in the Appalachian Mountains. What's so hard for you to grasp about the fact that I'm not going to have an off topic, side discussion about news outlets that no one is providing references from? If you can provide evidence that most articles published by Notimex are published without identifying the author and your able to determine why this published anonymously then be my guest. But I don't care about your opinion on vague, handwavy, general, topics that aren't relevant to this like wider trends in the news publishing world or whatever. At this point I'm seriously starting to think your just trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To me it seems that you cited a policy which supports what you quoted about "editorial commentary", but not what you categorically wrote about anonymous sources being unusable for notability. (Editorial commentary may or may not be anonymous, and anonymous articles may or may not be reliable.) You are then directly using this apparent misinterpretation of policy to attempt to reject the Notimex source out of hand. However, it's clear from the above that being challenged like this is causing you stress, and I regret that. So perhaps it is best if we leave further consideration of the merits of these arguments to the AFD closer, who will if necessary judge validity of reasoning as part of gleaning consensus. Martinp (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability. That's why I specifically said "If it's an op-ed, which is my suspicion, then WP:NEWSORG says...." What part of "if it's an op-ed" sounds like "anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability" to you? I also said that "if it was an opinion piece, it would have to be attributed to the author. Which can't be done if the author is anonymous." Again, what part of "if it's an opinion piece" translates into "anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability."? I'm not stressed by being "challenged", I'm stressed by the fact that what I'm being challenged on is obvious strawman nonsense that can be easily disproven if you actually took the time read what I wrote. It shouldn't take this teeth pulling and obfuscation just to discuss the merits of a reference. Especially since we have plenty of other ones that aren't anonymous. So arguing over the minutia of the one from Notimex and who what in what way blah blah is extremely pointless. You and Phil Bridger are strawmanning me over something that literally doesn't matter. That it's easily disprovable nonesense is just the icing on the cake. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to get what people are saying is so bad that it's not even wrong. It's just not possible to explain to you how things are, because you always project onto the person you are discussing with all of your own failings. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's weird how you never seem to have an actual argument. Everything with you boils down to "wwwaahhh why aren't you listening?" and then some insult about how I'm a loser or something along those lines. It's odd that you can't take apart what I say in an actually effective, reasonable manor. Instead you resort to using grade school bully antics. Especially considering how much you've acted like your so intellectually superior to me and more knowledgeable about this then I am Etc. Etc. Supposedly I'm the incompetent one and the failure. Yet your completely incapable of writing a single message that involves logic beyond the level of a spoiled 5 year. Everything you've said essentially boils down to you not liking that I'm not building the sand castle exactly how you want it to be built. So you throw the toys around and whine like a spoiled toddler. That's it. You literally have nothing else. Have fun with that. I'm done with the discussion. We should really give other people a chance to share their opinions. It's not just your sand castle. Stop acting like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nowhere did I say anonymous sources are categorically unusable for notability.": "It doesn't really matter where it comes from. Anonymous sources are still unusable for notability."" But at this point anything counts, it's just a bludgeoning the process and WP:GAME festival. I am considering going at ANI for the mess you are causing here, which I suspect it's not such an unusual occurrence in your contribution history. --Cavarrone 09:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 13:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a rule of thumb, and there will be exceptions, sources dated before 2015 and around October will usually refer to this event, sources for the other one will likely be c. 2015 or later, and probably around March as well. I must stress there will be exceptions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Reaffirm my keep' !vote. I've let this settle for a few days and have reviewed the discussion above. I continue to believe that the material in the Peter Rist book (source raised by Phil Bridger), together with the material in the Notimex source are already enough to meet my bar for independent-enough, significant-enough coverage to not warrant deletion. Further info can be brought in from other sources, with appropriate editorial diligence to make sure they refer to the right festival and to avoid refbombing. Martinp (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, but you don't have to reaffirm your vote. They only count it once anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2022 (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.