Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love at First Sight (2012 film)


 * 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. MichaelQSchmidt's point is the most compelling here, but there does not seem to be a clear consensus that it makes the article's subject fully notable. Therefore, this discussion is found to have not established (via consensus) whether or not the article's subject is notable, nor whether it should be deleted. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Love at First Sight (2012 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Looks to have a very impressive list of awards but none of them are major. Some are extremely minor. Has a ridiculous number of sources but there is a lack of good sources. Most are just listings. If no sources were found, just make some. The is a lack of coverage about this film. In the current version there is no in depth reviews from recognised critics. A search found none. A look at some of the sources. 2. The McIvor Times (from Heathcote, Victoria, circulation 987 )
 * "‘‘This was successful with more than 50 people attending the matinee session,’’ she said."
 * "The jury prize, consisting of $1500 and a magnum of the limited release 2012 Jasper Hill Georgia’s Paddock Shiraz, was awarded to Love at First Sight, a romantic comedy written and directed by UK-based filmmaker Mark Playne."
 * Very small town festival, trivial coverage of film.

4. News Express of India
 * "the first annual international film festival of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies ,New Delhi"
 * "In the fiction film category, an international entry ‘Love at first sight’ by Mark Playne won the first spot"
 * "The winning films by the jury were given the cash prizes of more of Rs 70,000 under different categories, in the valedictory ceremony." A touch over $1000.
 * Student festival, trivial coverage of film.

6. Golden Palmera Film Festival.
 * Just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.

8. Film Festival Life
 * just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.

10. House of Shorts
 * Trailer. Not an independent reliable source.

This is advertising from paid spammers. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 10:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sheer amount of peacock language and worthless citations lead me to a knee-jerk 'delete' vote, but there are a few valid, secondary sources.  The problem is whether regional film festival awards on their own are enough to satisfy WP:NFILM.  I'm not sure.  But if this article is kept, it's going to be need to be rewritten. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: NFILM's pretty foursquare on what they consider notable awards: Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Palme d'Ors, that standard. Nondescript school festivals are so far from counting I can't even see them.  Fails the GNG, going away.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's Not Well - National Names 2000 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Spanish title:(
 * Spanish title:(

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep per at least 31 wins & 6 nominations being pretty darn decent peer recognition for a 14-minute film. Admittedly, searches are hampered by its name being shared with numerous other films. WP:SOFIXIT  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, arrived at via applying common sense to the notability guideline: this film has been heavily screened at festivals around the world; has won what seems to be a large number of festival awards (even if not the A-list of fests, dozens of wins still seems like a big number); was premiered at the Palm Springs ShortFest which apparently has some sort of selection process and ranks alongside Sundance and Cannes as a top short film festival; is at least mentioned in a couple of RS news sources (OC Register, a triple-Pulitzer winning CA paper; Zee News, big media machine in India); features an actor (Shane Zaza) with at least one credit in a major movie (The Davinci Code); and is currently active (on sale at iTunes; web site lists multiple festival screening dates in 2015). Further, WP's notability guideline suggesting "significant coverage" is in large part to ensure that there is enough material for an article (WP:WHYN). Here, the article even as it stands (the insane festival list aside) does have the main elements of a film article in place - plot, cast, production detail, reception - and there is more info on the film's web site (which should be an acceptable source for non-controversial info about itself). Altogether, on a continuum from home movies to Oscar-winning Hollywood blockbusters, this would seem to be far enough along to be considered more notable than not. (FYI, I have no connection with anything to do with this film, never heard of it before the last hour, realize from clicking that it is part of a multi-article effort to have it included in WP, and haven't watched it. :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (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.