Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wine Tasting (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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wine Tasting (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:NFILM. While the film has been accepted to several film festivals, that unfortunately isn't a criteria for passing WP:NFILM. As far as independent secondary sources go, sources cited are IMDB, blogs, and interview articles with the director. With the film coming out just this year, it is simply wp:toosoon for this movie to have it's own wp page. Comatmebro (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The film is already out on Amazon Prime, and will be out on other platforms soon. It isn't too soon for it to have it's own wikpedia.  The film is currently OUT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyfilmmaker32 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wine Tasting has also been referenced in the Huffington Post, which I just added to my edit of the article. This is certainly major media coverage, and I've a number of other sources and the film is out on Amazon, and coming out on other outlets this summer, as well as having screened at festivals.  I believe I've met all the criteria.  And this is definitely not too soon with the film already out and already getting reviews.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyfilmmaker32 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - The editor that created the article is a connected contributor. red dogsix (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: No significant coverage. Being distributed in some form is not automatic notability. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Huffington Post, which covered the film, alone is significant media coverage. There's no reason to clutter the entry with every article written by on. The entry meets wikipedia's defined qualifications as A: publically distributed, and B: notably covered. Huffington Post is a major media outlet owned by AOL, and in turn owned by Verizon, a Fortune 500 company.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And the distribution by Amazon alone, one of the world's biggest media is significant. KinoNation, the distributor is also placing the film on VOD platforms and VOD is a legitimate form of distribution. Amazon alone is enough to legitimize the entry, as everyone has heard of Amazon.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. The Huffington Post has consistently been considered as not reliable for notability. And Amazon will distribute essentially anything.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't delete because other media outlets besides the Huffington Post covered, and the film has been screened at film festivals, and has a separate distributor from Amazon. Films are not released on all VOD platforms at the same time.

Besides, define "notable" which as some as you use it is ill defined. The film has already had reviews coming in on some sites, and will be reviewed on other sites but there is no need to include every link or story that mentions the film. The current links are sufficient. On a more cynical note, I hope the implication isn't that only summer blockbuster films that are backed by major corporations are "notable" because this implies this entity is in the pockets of certain major corporate interests.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also question the person who claims that the Huffington Post has not been considered "reliable" for notability. That's a claim with no supporting evidence in and of itself, and it does not belong in this process. Anyone can make such an allegation about any media outlet.Nyfilmmaker32 (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Mainly because the producer's AFD was relisted as well and redirecting/merging to his article seems a possible outcome if that one is kept
 * Delete: agree with DGG and SL93....Sulaimandaud (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  12:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * delete wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION and this film isn't very notable Rrachet (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2017 (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.