Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Queer 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. (non-admin closure) — Theopolisme   ( talk )  00:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Notre Dame Queer Film Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable university film festival. No indication of lasting notability, no sources under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment unless lasting notability can be cited, a two-year university film festival fails WP:GNG DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Looking through some of the sources listed, I'm inclined to consider the article just notable enough to pass. Ducknish (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * in 2006 as
 * in 2007 as


 * Keep article on a festival founded in 2004, one that has now happened more than just twice under various names, even with the disapproval of the Catholic administration of Notre Dame University, is likely to repeat again in future years. Under its various incarnations, this one has already received an interesting amount of coverage... not for what screens, but for itself as a festival. More sources available than just those used in the article, including Catholic Online Cape Cod Times  The Observer  The New York Times  Bay Times   Even if finally killed off, WP:N/WP:GNG is met.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of secondary source coverage from multiple different types of references and publications. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2013 (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.