Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters (2nd nomination)


 * 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 early "delete" opinions were given before sources were provided in this discussion.  Sandstein  20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Food Matters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability or particularly wide distribution. A smattering of what appear to be blog articles are the primary sources. Some WP:FRINGE issues, given the film's advocacy for Orthomolecular medicine, though, were it notable, that could likely be dealt with - the lack of notability moves this into delete. Does not even come close to the film notability standards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * delete based on reviews of dubious expertise. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, this article is reaching far for notability. Delta13C (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is based on available sources, not sourcing in articles. North America1000 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable promotional faux-documentary. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOT bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from . is a good source. This provides more coverage. The maker website's press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for WP:GNG.
 * From the last afd Taylor Trescott found sources, saying "I'd say this lengthy source from the The Gazette establishes notability. There is also some coverage here in The Sunday Star-Times. In this book here, it's called "amazing" and a movie "everyone should see"."
 * Note that above delete comments are mostly WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE so should be discounted. Nomination is based on the current state of the article and not on available sources so doesn't hold much water. Not have addressed any of the sources presented during the last afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. This is a collection of marginal sources. The Australian Business Review is less about the film and more about whether you can make money off such films. The Sunday Star Times one has a contest in it, indicating a press release/marketing stunt being behind it. The Canada.com is of dubious sourcing; appears to be a blog-like column stolen from a regional newspaper (I think maybe the Montreal Gazette?) They just don't amount to evidence of notability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stolen? Don't know where that comes from, both Canada.com and Montreal Gazette are Postmedia Network publications. Even if you are dubious about the "blog-like" link presented it doesn't matter that much, It originally appear in the Gazette newspaper itself (19 September 2008, section Arts & Life: Movies, page D1). That is a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And how about Sunshine Coast Daily and The Press (Christchurch). And the ones indicated on the makers website? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:NFSOURCES. Doesn't meet other criteria for notability such as "...widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.." Blue Riband►  18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability (films) says, "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow." The general notability guideline is restated at Notability (films). It is clear that Food Matters has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please be aware of WP:CANVASSING by the nominator here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted this deletion discussion on a noticeboard dedicated to such things. This is canvassing now? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep in light of sources from User:duffbeerforme and the following:, , . As always, the pseudoscience needs to be named as pseudoscience, but deleting the article isn't a good alternative to refuting the film's questionable claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America1000 02:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources provided by and . The Gazette, The Sunday Star-Times, Mother Nature Network, and Sunshine Coast Daily all provide significant coverage of Food Matters. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Food Matters to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – and copy edit per sources. Passes WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. Source examples include:, , , , , , , . Per WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main Notability guideline page, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America1000 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - With the sources provided by Northamerica1000 and duffbeerforme, passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's plenty of source material for this topic, some of might include Pharma Law Weekly's article New Film Offers Wisdom on Struggling Health Care System: “Food Matters” (reproduced by PRWeb), See 'King Corn' at Hallwalls, Films promote food ideals. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and immediately add all of duffbeerforme's sources as inline citations to the article. It seems the problem with the article was in not providing proper sourcing rather than demonstrating that no such sourcing exists.  To that extent this is a very good outcome of this AfD, in that it should spur real improvement to a Wikipedia article. -Markeer 15:56, 8 January 2016 (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.