Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Run Features


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First Run Features

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, either interviews or business as usual announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing ++ 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely a well-known and successful indie and doc film distributor, but I too can't immediately find any in-depth coverage beyond acquisition announcements. I think I remember once reading a piece on the CEO and/or the company, but can't find it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources I found: The New York Times, indieWire (a bit press release-ish), a couple of the acquisition announcements in Variety 1, 2. Google Books Search shows a few passing results. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above sources, an 1999 article from The Advocate ("After years of struggle, First Run Features thrives with gay and lesbian home video").  And First Run was the subject of multi-film retrospectives at the Museum of Modern Art in 2001  and in 2009 at the Film Society of Lincoln Center. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes, I think the NYT piece was the one I was thinking of. That, with the Advocate, the retrospectives esp. the Film Society push it just past the bar, for me. Weak keep. The NYT piece really needs to be added to the article, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there seems to be room for good improvement.  Bruzer Fox  09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep there seem to be enough references, and the sheer number of notable films they've distributed is enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'll add the NYTimes reference found here to the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (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.