Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Continents 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. John254 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Three Continents Festival

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

very limited third party coverage Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Extreme KEEP. WIth respects to the nom, a film festival that has been around for nearly 30 years has got a little bit going for it. So I spent a few minutes cleaning up and sourcing the article. Its definitely notable. And though the nom found this with one spelling, I found this with another and this with a thrird... and let us not forget the more general web searches which found, , and  . Most definitely notable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep? I've never seen that in an AfD! Anyway, existing for 30 years doesn't in itself make it notable, it still needs to past the significant coverage test. This reference isn't exactly a totally reliable source, newspapers and independent media is more reliable. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, newspapers. I found those sources as well.. as did you. Like I wrote, I took 2 minutes to cleanup and source. More can certianly be added. Would you care to do so per WP:ATD, rather than nom for delete? It has notability. Its not Cann, but it has international coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article looks extreme to me, extremely referenced etc. In fairness to the nominator it probably didn't look like this extreme when he first saw it, extreme work Schmidt. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks. I took only a quick look for sourcing. There's lots more.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep with the current references, the required coverage is there. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Super cool-ass keep - Supplied references satisfy the EXTREME-o-meter, and WP:V. &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:36, 16 December 2008 (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.