Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Wildlife 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

International Wildlife Film Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article presents no reliable sources or evidence of notability, and has very little content. » Swpbτ • ¢ 03:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —» Swpbτ • ¢ 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because this film festival is notable, as shown by decades of coverage in reliable sources. Simply use the handy Google News Archive tool above to verify the vast number of sources readily available.  I recommend that the nominator review WP:BEFORE and follow its wise precepts.  When reliable sources on a notable topic are readily available, add the best of them to the article instead of nominating the article for deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I forgot to take a look at Google Books before making the "Keep" recommendation above. When I did, I found in-depth coverage of this film festival in many books.  Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well why don't you add sources, instead of lambasting me? AfD isn't just about getting rid of hopeless cases, it's also about spurring people to improve long-deficient articles. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment No it isn't: WP:NOTCLEANUP. Francis Bond (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it should be. » Swpbτ • ¢ 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable despite the state of the article. AFD is not a venue for getting articles improved.--Michig (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article and added a number of references from reliable sources.  I do not think that pointing out such an excellent recommendation as WP:BEFORE constitutes "lambasting" and I am always happy to expand and reference articles on interesting and notable topics when I have the time.  Thanks to Swpb for urging me to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination statement, the article did contain a very reliable source published by a university press at the time of nomination: the one that I added when I removed the WP:PROD tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2011 (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.