Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WILDsound 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WILDsound Film Festival

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a nomination by user whose A7 and G11 speedy nominations on this article I declined, and who accepted my offer to do the nomination process. I give below the reason presented on the nominator's talk page:


 * The mandate for Wikipedia is clear, it is an Encyclopedia. As such, articles that are not notable AND promotional do not belong here. I challenge the claim that article supplies "credible assertion of significance or importance", can you quote at least ONE single line/or paragraph? I agree with you that the article reads rather as the festival's manifesto than as an encyclopedia article. Can you quote at least ONE single line/or paragraph, that make it not irretrievably promotional? If you cannot, I couldn't either. However, there is a much greater issue at stake here, especially with regards to the non-existing sources, and accompanying time-frame, i.e. five years:


 * The tag already placed, on the page proves the point I am making exactly; quote: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (October 2008)."


 * Five (!) years later, there are still no sufficient references (see References). A sufficient reference would include at least one single mentioning in a newspaper, magazine, or journal (Times, Forbes, Economist) which is not the case here. If it were a local festival, Canadian local, there would be at least one mentioning, or citation in a local, Canadian publication, such as Thestar, Globe, Times, National Post. Since, there is none (after 5 years), and I have found none, after researching several hours, I see no reason, why it should NOT be deleted. — Wikipatrolwatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I express no view myself. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article does not pass muster. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 *Delete - Concur with Wikipatrolwatch, JohnCD and Whpq; No significant coverage in reliable sources. No primary, no secondary sources (Searched on Google, Bing, Yahoo Search; Result: Nada. The sourcing in the article does not pass muster. -- Editor400 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC) — Editor400 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Striking !vote from a sock of Wikipatrolwatch. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable film festival. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not sufficient to just assert that it is notable. The notability needs to be supported with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  I was unable to find such sources, but if you are aware of such coverage, please bring them forward.  -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Comment only (not meant to influence vote, but result of additional research, thank you); After doing some more research, I discovered three objective facts that should be considered, in addition to the aformentioned issues above. Fact one, the website in question is designed like a SEO landing page, please have a look here Fact two, when you look up a specific entry of this 'film festival,' it links to mainstream cinema films, and not independent cinema, as it promotes itself, here is just one example  Fact three, there are several instances in which people have submitted (and paid submission fees) to enter this venue, but never heard back, again, just one example, here  Thus, in addition to the lack of any independent news coverage extended over 5 years, this platform appears like an SEO page. It gets additional traffic from being listed on Wikipedia, which I could not find anywhere in the Wiki guidelines, as being the mandate of Wikipedia. Should A7 and G11 be reconsidered? Please do take the time to look at the evidence provided. Thank you. Also added to talk page, for further discussion. Signed.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply The crapiness of their website has no bearing on notability; nor does straying from their mission statement; nor do complaints posted in a blog. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ReplyThank you for your reply Whpq. But do you think there is an inherent logic in the overall argument, as presented, i.e. a combination, or sum-of-things, which would warrant a speedy A7 or G11? Anyone can objectively see that there are no existing independent sources (five years later) by doing a thorough Google search (which I did). The point I am making is: This 'article' is neither about a film festival, nor is it an encyclopedic entry. Does denying a speedy A7/G11 or constantly relisting this, change that fact? Signed: Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - A7 is valid only if there is no credible assertion of notability. Statements that moderators in the past have included notable people in the film industry is (in my opinion) sufficient.  As for G11, if you have to go to through all that research to determine that the article is promotional, then I would say that the "unambiguous" portion of the "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" has not been met. Basically, if you need to build up a case for speedy deletion, then it likely isn't a good candidate for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and no reliable sources to assert notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:39, 11 February 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.