Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Taste of Relation


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  08:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The Taste of Relation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

PROD removed with rationale "remove prod - has some reasonably substantive reviews, shoudl probably go to AfD at minimum."

Let's decide if the reviews are enough to pass WP:NFILM and have the notability tag removed, or if the article should be deleted. Donald D23  talk to me  13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India,  and Canada.  Donald D23   talk to me  13:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The review websites looks iffy. Looking at this, it appears to me that the reviewing guidelines is low, I doubt that reviewers are professional looking at here. This is also a minor festival site. The winning of the California Film Awards gives me pause on deletion. I disagree that it should be considered as especially major to meet WP:NFILM criteria 3. However, it does have a WP article, compare WP:NWEB, which clarifies that when an award has a WP article it should be considered significant. On the contrary, the article for the award is sourced from non-independent refs. So I do agree that the notability here is doubtful, but if it's agreed that the award fails to meet WP:NFILM I would then vote delete. However, I do weakly concur with the deprod- this has some reviews of iffy notability and awards that could go either way, therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial IMHO.  VickKiang   (talk)  06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that delete is more popular, I'd be happy to change my vote to weak delete.  VickKiang  (talk)  04:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to directory entries and online stores like Amazon or Best Buy, none of which are support for notability — and the only two sources that are in any way analytical come from sources whose reliability for the purposes of WP:GNG is at best dubious. The rule isn't that film reviews can come from just anywhere — it's that they have to come from reliable sources. And even awards aren't necessarily automatic notability clinchers either — "notability because awards" doesn't indiscriminately attach to just every award that exists, but looks for either (a) top level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, or (b) a narrow tier of internationally prominent film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, TIFF, Sundance, etc.) that get media coverage, and a film cannot accrue notability on the basis of awards that have to be sourced to the festival's own self-published website about itself because media coverage about the award win is nonexistent. That is, in order to make a film notable for winning an award, it is necessary to prove that the award itself is a notable one in the first place, which hasn't been shown by any sources here. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.